THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Presented by President Kinley 1928 357 Un39r MODERNIZE ILLINOIS BANKING LAWS VOTE YES FIRST COLUMN ON LARGE BALLOT For the proposed amend- YES X ment to Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Article XI of the Constitution. NO Strengthen Our State Banking System Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/reportofsecretar00unit_7 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ON THE REVISION OF THE TARIFF, WITH ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. FEBRUARY 16, 18S6. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1886 . Treasury Department, Document No. 781. Secretary. /? 2? 337 l/t-r' -r' CONTENTS. sj Preliminary remarks Simplicity of Tariff Laws from 1789 to 1818 Laws regulating the collection of duties Efforts to prevent customs frauds after 1818, and up to 1861 Efforts to prevent presentation of false invoices after 1861 Why have not customs frauds been punished? New coercion laws nearly coincident with increased ad valorem rates down to 1874 — need of simplicity Tariff laws, and the tax laws of New York Senate Bill No. 1153 * Responsibility for seizures Pro forma invoices Reorganization of the appraising department Difficulties in reappraisements Specific and ad valorem rates Consigned merchandise Appendix : A. — Department circular : Application of Section 9, Act of March 3, 1883, to the ascertainment of foreign market values of imported merchan- dise B. — Statement of the number and designation of officers and employes in the appraiser’s office, port of New York, with their annual compen- sation Correspondence : Circular letters to merchants and manufacturers Answers of merchants and manufacturers to Department’s circular letters of inquiry V VIII X XIV XXI XXII XXV XXVII XXVIII XXX XXXI XXXIII XXXVII XXXIX XLI XLIII XLVIII LIII 1 64 8 5 51 LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IN RELATION TO A REVISION OF THE TARIFF. . Treasury Department, February 16, 1886. Sir : In my Annual Report I alluded to an invitation, conveyed u in some 2,000 circular letters to our manufacturers and merchants,” re- questing 4 4 their enlightened co-operation in the inrprovement of our fiscal policy,” and I added that 4 4 the replies received will hereafter be submit- ted to the consideration of Congress. ’ ’ I have asked permission of those whose communications seem to throw light on the subject, in a legis- lative sense, and I transmit, herewith, the opinions of the manufact- urers and merchants who have given to me authority to do so, together with other matter pertinent to the subject. My opinion in regard to our existing Tariff law is clear and positive, and is confirmed more and more by every day’s widening experience in the administration of this Department. Soon after I entered thereon, less than a year ago, I became convinced that the investigations into the conduct of the customs service which had already been begun by my predecessor, Mr. McCulloch, were of pressing importance, and I con- tinued them with energy. The result, up to the meeting of Congress, is contained in my Annual Report. Since that date, the need of ad- ditional legislation has, in my appreciation, become more imperative. Two courses are, as I endeavored to intimate in my Annual Report, open to Congress. One is an enlargement of the free list, a reduction of the number of dutiable articles, a prudent substitution of specific for ad valorem rates, and a thorough revision and change of the existing rates and systeih. The other is partially indicated by a recent Senate Bill (No. 1153) which is now before me, and is in the direction of de- terrent legislation which shall, by more stringent rules, and new con- VI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. trivances in the form of fines and punishments, so operate on the fears of importers as to induce them to present truthful invoices, and make on entry a correct declaration of the foreign value. These two courses are not necessarily alternative. Both may be pur- sued together. But, in my opinion, it is expedient that an attempted reduction and simplification of rates shall precede a revival of “ Coer- cion Laws” on the subject. It would be inconvenient, if not impossible, for me to fully set forth all the considerations which constrain me to this opinion. In the daily supervision by the Head of this Department of the collection of the customs revenue at one hundred and sixteen separate ports, or places of entry, he naturally, and necessarily, as I have discovered, receives very distinct impressions of what is possible, and what is practically impossible in administration, — the causes, reasons and precise char- acter of which cannot be defined and expressed in writing, short of a stenographic report of all its multifarious daily business. A large part of the general facts and considerations which have influenced my con- clusions I endeavored to exhibit in my Annual Report. The unwilling- ness of those who are not customs officials to really aid, and not em- barrass, those who are charged with the execution of the existing tariff law, is each day most painfully impressed upon me. It is felt in this Department, not only when fines, or punishments, are to be inflicted for acts of commission, or of omission, in making entries, but also when the Department is, by reason of* an ambiguity in the statute, required to decide between a higher and a lower rate. The indefiniteness of the language too often used in making commercial designations, and in pre- scribing rates, encourages domestic manufacturers, on the one side, and importers, on the other side, to press considerations on the Department, in favor of this policy or that policy, this theory or that theory, suit- able enough for Congress, but altogether unsuitable for an executive officer, who is required to ascertain the intention of the law-makers, as best he may, from the language finally sent to, and approved by, the President. One sometimes is made to feel that the ambiguity and con- fusion of the tariff statute were intentional, and that a controversy be- tween opposing selfish interests which could not be, or was not, adjusted in the committee-room of either House, had been transferred, by a sort of common consent, to this Department, and to the Courts. The influ- ence of such ambiguity is especially seen and felt in the appraising and liquidating departments, and is, I suspect, at the bottom of much of the disorder which dishonors the customs revenue by the improper prac- tices and strife thus engendered at the large ports. That ambiguity should be, first of all, removed by a careful revision of the existing laws. A pertinent example of such ambiguity is in the 7th Section of the Tariff law of 1883, which has recently been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and to which in my Annual Report I asked the imme- diate attention of Congress. That section was most carefully studied by my learned predecessor, Mr. Folger, who as a member and Chief- Justice of the New York Court of Appeals had large experience in the examination of statutes. It was subsequently studied by the Attorney- General who gave an elaborate opinion to this Department. It was debated in New York before Judge Wallace, and interpreted by him in an opinion from the bench. These well-trained executive and judi- cial officers substantially agreed in their conclusions. But the justices of the Supreme Court were recently unanimous in condemning as an REVISION OF THE TARIFF. VII error what had been decided. The section seems to have been most successfully drawn if ambiguity was sought by the draughtsman, but most unsuccessfully if clearness was the object. I again, most ear- nestly, commend the section to the revision of Congress, aided by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court, and urge the announcement of a clear and unmistakable rule on the subject, under which the business of importation, and of the liquidating officers of the custom-houses, can be safely carried on. The task of applying the recent decision to the reliquidation of old entries, where protests and appeals have been made, will be full of perplexity, doubt, and most inconvenient re- sponsibility, but such confusion and uncertainty will, I hope, not be allowed by Congress to long disturb future importations. The opinions expressed by my predecessor, Mr. Bibb, in a Circular Letter, dated August 5th, 1844, are most pertinent at this moment. He said : “By communications to this Department, it appears that the im- port duties, as charged and collected on articles of like kind at the several custom-houses, are not uniform throughout the United States, whereby like ' articles of commerce imported into some of the States, whereon the duties are paid at the lower rates there charged by the officers of the customs, can be, and are transported to other States, and sold for less than like articles can be afforded, when imported and en- tered at the ports of other States, where a higher rate of duty is charged. The Constitution of the United States ordains, that ‘all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States’ — ‘No pre- ference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.’ The act of the Congress of the United States to provide revenue from imports, intends that the duties shall be uniform throughout the United States. But practically, and in fact, different duties on like articles are charged and collected at different custom-houses. By such want of uniformity the Consti- tution is offended, the act of the Congress is offended, the prudent schemes of merchants, and the due profits of commercial enterprises are disconcerted, the interests and conveniences of customers are inju- riously affected. Justice due to the officers of the customs at the sev- eral ports of the States requires me to say, that in seeking to perform their duties faithfully, the want of perspicuity and exact definiteness in the enactments of the law has given rise to their differences of construc- tion. The varieties of duties levied, in fact, at different ports by the respective officers of the customs, so tending to incommode and baffle the important operations of commerce, and to give a preference to the ports of one State over those of another, are subjects demanding the exercise of the superintending authority of the Secretary of the De- partment of the Treasury. * * * The sovereign power of taxation .is the source from whence the most widespread wrongs, oppressions, and ruin of the people flow in all governments. The safeguard against abuse of the taxing power of government intended by our Constitution, is in confiding that power to the Congress. It would ill become the executive department to take money from the pockets of the people by implication and constructive enlargement of the acts of the legislature. When the Congress, in the exercise of their power of taxation, have not spoken expfessly and clearly ; when the words of the law leave room for rational doubt as to a higher or lower rate of taxation, the decision of the executive officers should be in favor of the lower rate. Iu so VIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. doing, tlie executive action is certainly within the limit prescribed by the law. To take the highest rate of taxation, in such dubious cases, would be hazarding a supplement to the legislative will, and an inroad into the region of the legislative department. Such a mode of con- struction by the executive department would not be lenient and re- medial, but onerous and penal.” I hope I may be permitted, by way of preface and explanation of my views in respect to tariff revision, to set forth, as briefly and clearly as I can, what, in my appreciation, is the real condition of the existing tariff system, and the causes, or circumstances, which have brought it to that condition. If there is an evil therein to be remedied, a logical method of procedure will be to ascertain definitely what the evil is, and how it has come into existence. My own estimate of the evil, and its causes, may be at fault, and if so, that fault will naturally infect my suggestions of a remedy, and my criticism of a remedy proposed by others. SIMPLICITY OF TARIFF LAWS FROM 1789 TO 1818. The levy and collection of duties on imports has come to be extremely artificial and technical. It was not so in the beginning. By all the earlier Collection Laws, and down to 1818, the invoice to be presented on an entry was to contain “the prime net cost,” at the place of ex- portation, meaning thereby the actual price paid in money, and not the market value if the two were unlike. There was no special provision for an invoice of merchandise obtained by gift, or in part by money and in part by gift, or for merchandise consigned hither by a manu- facturer. Up to 1818 the punishment for an intent, and an attempt, to evade the payment of duty known to be legally chargeable, was con- fiscation for either one of three defined offences. One was the presen- tation of an invoice which intentionally did not display the actual cost. Another was the intentional entry of packages by a false denomination, or description, in order to defraud the revenue. The third was the concealment of any merchandise on a vessel, or elsewhere, (such as not putting it on the manifest, ) in order to evade payment of duties, or the landing without a permit, which was the offence of smuggling. It should also be kept in mind that up to 1818 the Collectors of Customs levied ad valorenj rates' on the invoice value unless they had reason to suspect a fraud in the invoice. There was no appraising staff. When an invoice value was suspected, two merchants were selected to ap- praise the merchandise. From then till now, there have been, side by side, two classes of tariff legislation ; one class prescribing the rates to be levied, and one class providing the machinery for enforcing and levy- ing the rates. The work of enacting a law of the first class was entered upon in 1789, on the motion of Madison, even before the President had been inaugurated, so empty was the new treasury. In the resolution in- troduced by him, proposing a temporary system of imposts, the rates seem to be about equally divided between specific and ad valorem. In the law as finally enacted some twenty of the specifications were specific rates and fifteen ad valorem rates. The debate which arose thereon in the House foreshadowed, and indeed developed, the conflict of eco- nomic and constitutional opinions, which has been so prominent in more recent politics, excepting only the question of constitutional power in Congress to levy duties on imports for the sole purpose of protecting, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. IX or aiding, a particular industry which appears not then to have been seriously mooted. The argument, that smugglers marked the line be- yond which rates could not be carried, was earnestly pressed. In this early day trauds on the revenue by false invoices, and by undervalua- tions on appraisements, had not been developed into the cunning art that it has since become. In 1790, the rates were revised and increased, but preserving,, so far as can now be ascertained, much the same rela- tion between specific and ad valorem. Gerry, Sedgwick and Ames renewed a presentation of the danger from smugglers, which Sherman characterized “ as an insulting imputation on the American mercan- tile character, 77 and warned his colleagues to take care lest, by suggest- ing the probability of smuggling, they encouraged it. As a safeguard, however, the Collection Act was re-enforced by new and more stringent provisions. In 1797 the Federal treasury needed an additional sum of $1,229,000 a year. The average rate then levied on all imports was 16 per cent. A resolution passed the House to raise the money by a direct tax on lands, houses and slaves, but a bill to that end was finally defeated, and on the suggestion of one of my predecessors in this Department, Mr. Wolcott, additional rates on imports were levied, preserving about the same relation, as I infer, between specific and ad valorem. In 1801, one of the most illustrious of my predecessors, Mr. Gallatin, said to Congress : “ Without any view to an increase of revenue, but in order to guard as far as possible against the value of goods being underrated in the in- voices, it would be eligible to lay specific duties on all such articles, now paying duties ad valorem, as may be susceptible of that alteration. 77 From this date o>f 1801 to the tariff law of April 27, 1816, there was no legislation which can pertinently illustrate for us to-day the proper relation of specific to ad valorem rates, or what shall be done now to prevent revenue frauds. Down to 1807 the growth of American man- ufactures was very slow. Our capital was richly rewarded on the sea, and there it remained. But in that year two new and powerful in- fluences supervened, which were the violation of our neutral rights by the armed belligerents, England and France, and the commercial re- strictions inflicted on ourselves. Those causes largely expelled our capital from the sea and kept out foreign fabrics. Manufactures natur- ally started with a bound. It was the era of Berlin and Milan Decrees, of Orders in Council, of Embargo, of Non-Intervention Acts, and finally of war for “Free Trade and Sailors 7 Bights. 77 The results of the war, the condition of the country, and the recep- tion of large quantities of the accumulated products of British manu- facture sold at auction prices in our cities, called into being the decid- edly protective tariffs of 1824 and 1828, and increased the use of ad valorem rates. Then came the tariff of 1832, the “compromise 77 of 1833, the protective tariff of 1842, the revenue ad valorem tariffs of 1846 and 1857, and, finally, the civil war legislation on the tariff which began in 1861 and has continued till to-day. What the rela- tion was between specific and ad valorem rates in the tariff laws of 1816, 1818, 1824, 1828 and 1832 can be seen at a glance by consulting a comparative tabular statement transmitted to the House of Bepresent- atives by my predecessor, Mr. McLane, on February 8, 1833. X REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. LAWS REGULATING THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES. From April 27, 1816, down to the outbreak of war in 1861, there were eleven prominent enactments levying rates of duty, approved respectively, on April 20, 1818, April 18, 1820, May 22, 1824, May 19, 1828, May 20, 1830, July 14, 1832, Match 2, 1833, September 11, i.841, August 30, 1842, July 30, 1846, and March 3, 1856. There were, during the same period, eleven or more enactments reg- ulating the collection of duties, some of them punishing frauds, ap- proved, respectively, March 3, 1817, April 20. 1818, March 1, 1823. May 19, 1828, May 28, 1830, July 14, 1832, August 30, 1842, July 3(fi 1846, August 6, 1846, March 3, 1851, and March 3, 1857. 1818. — After the enactment of the tariff law of April 27. 1816, which levied ad valorem rates that were exceedingly low in comparison with those levied to-day, the House of Representatives, on February 28, 1817, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress at their next session “such measures as maybe necessary for the more effectual ex- ecution of the laws for the collection “of the duties on imported goods, wares and merchandise. 7 ’ Under this law of 1816 only fifteen per cent, ad valorem was levied on linen and silk bindings, on blankets, bleached linens, bunting, burlaps, cambric linen and cambric handkerchiefs, and cashmere shawls ; only twenty per cent, was levied on manufactures of copper, on cutlery, glassware, all manufactures of hemp, woollen, worsted or cotton hosiery, all manufactures of iron, and screws ; only twenty-five per cent, on carpets and carpeting, manufactures of cotton of all descriptions, flannels, and manufactures of wool ; and only thirty per cent, on brushes of all kinds, cabinet- wares, carriages, ready-made clothing of all kinds, hats and bonnets, and all manufactures of leather. On January 18, 1818, my very able and distinguished predecessor, Mr. Crawford, made an elaborate report, which was printed in Execu- tive Document No. 58, First Session, Fifteenth Congress. Immediately after the resolution of the House had been sent to him he addressed on May 7, 1817, a circular letter to collectors of customs, saying to them that a general impression appeared to prevail that frauds of a glaring nature were frequently committed upon the revenue, especially in im- portations upon consignments, and requesting them to communicate to him every circumstance tending to show the evasion of the provisions of the existing laws, accompanied by suggestions of ways and means to repress the evil. The Secretary in his report informs Congress that the Collectors of Customs “made no communication upon the subject; 77 but, in spite of what he describes as “the tacit evidence that the provisions of the Collection Laws are not materially defective, 77 he nevertheless states that in his opinion, “notwithstanding the result of these experiments, there is just reason to believe that frauds to a considerable extent have been and are now committed upon the rev- enue in the importation of articles upon consignments paying ad valorem duties. 77 Mr. Crawford then proceeds in this report to make declarations to Congress in respect to evasions of the customs law, which well describe the conditions under which importations are, by so many intelligent observers, believed to be made in the present year of 1886. He says : “The practice of shipping merchandise from Europe to the United States on account of the foreign shipper has greatly increased since the late peace. The immediate cause of this increase may be probably REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XI found in the general distress which at, and since that epoch, pervaded universally the manufacturing establishments, from whence our supply of foreign merchandise has been principally derived. The manufact- urers unable to dispose of the products of their labor in their accustomed markets, assumed the character of exporting merchants, and shipped their merchandise directly to the United States, where it has been sold by their agents or consignees. In adopting this course, not only the fair profit of the manufacturer and exporting merchant is concentrated in the hands of the latter, but also the loss which the revenue sustains by invoicing the merchandise at the actual cost of the raw material and the price of the labor employed in its manufacture. Should any part of this profit not be realized, from the circumstances of the mer- chandise being sold in a glutted market, or from any other cause, the articles reached the hands of the consumer at a rate lower than it could be sold by the fair American importer. In either event the honest American merchant is driven from the competition, and 4 in the latter, the domestic manufacture is deprived of the protection which was intended to be secured by the legislature. 4 4 But, independent of this evasion of the revenue laws, which, by those who practice it, may be deemed consistent with the principles of morality, a practice of a less equivocal character is known to exist in importations, made by foreign merchants upon consignment. There is abundant reason to believe, that it is now customary in importations of this nature, to send with the merchandise, an invoice considerably below the actual cost, by which the entry is made and the duties secured. Another invoice at, or above, the actual cost, is forwarded to a different person, with instructions to take and sell the goods by such invoice. In this manner the person who enters the goods remains ignorant of the fraud to which he has been innocently made a party, and the fraudulent importer escapes with impunity. The facility with which frauds may be practiced by permitting entries to be made by persons who know nothing of the correctness of the invoices by which the duties are to be ascertained, so strongly invites to the substitu- tion of false, for true invoices, that the practice must necessarily become universal, if suitable checks are not devised against it. 4 4 It is also ascertained that resident merchants have in some instances connected themselves with foreign mercantile houses, which are in the habit of purchasing cloths of every description in their rudest state of manufacture, which are in their hands brought to the highest state of perfection by dyeing, dressing, or bleaching, according to the kind of cloth purchased. Such articles are invoiced at the price given for them in their unfinished state of manufacture, and upon those invoices the duties are estimated. Connections of this kind will necessarily in- crease, and eventually embrace the whole catalogue of articles paying ad valorem duties, unless checks calculated to repress the evil, are promptly devised and a})plied. 4 4 The practice of entering goods without invoice is another mode now frequently resorted to, for the purpose of evading the payment of the duties which are legally demandable upon them. In these cases, and indeed in all cases, where the collector shall suspect that the invoices are fraudulent, the resort to appraisement authorized by law is generally found to be in favor of the importer , and against the Government. This may, in some measure, be attributable to the defect of the existing provis- ions upon that subject, but the universal experience of every department XII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. of the Government proves the danger there is of submitting any ques- tion to the decision of persons acting as arbitrators between the United States and individuals. In most cases of this kind the appraisers are influenced by a morbid sensibility which almost invariably impels them to sacrifice the interest of the nation to that of the individual. Inde- pendent, however, of this indefensible principle of action, there must necessarily exist in most cases of appraisement under the collection laws, some individual bias in favor of the importer. The decision is to be made by merchants, and if made in favor of the Government, the reputation of the party in interest must be seriously affected. The persons called upon to decide may themselves be placed the next day in a situation to have their reputation assailed by the same means. The great body of the merchants may in the question under con- sideration be viewed as a distinct community, bound together by ties generally inscrutable to the collector ; performing successively for each other, .acts by which their pecuniary interests oftentimes acquire a unity, totally incompatible with the disinterested discharge of the duties of au appraiser. Should, however, the appraisement, in despite of all these obstacles, correspond with the impressions of the collector, and seizure of the merchandise be' made, the party is allowed to prove the actual cost of the articles, and time is generally allowed by our courts, for the examina- tion of witnesses beyond the seas. The result of an investigation under such circumstances can hardly be considered doubtful. In making these observations, no imputation upon the character of the American merchant is intended. As a body of men they are highly respectable for their intelligence, integrity and respect for the laws. So far as they are directly concerned in importations, I believe with the collec- tors of the customs that the revenue has been generally fairly paid. But it is impossible that the high character which the}^ have hitherto maintained should be preserved against the ruinous competition in which they have, since the peace, been engaged, unless the frauds prac- tised by the foreign importer shall be effectually restrained. Indeed, there is some reason to believe, that some among them have already re- sorted to practices, more effectual for evading the payment of duties justly demandable of them, than those which have been, with so much success, employed by foreign importers. It has frequently happened that a vessel bound to a particular port is freighted by merchants re- siding in the principal commercial cities. In such cases the goods have generally been entered by an agent or consignee, residing in the port where the vessel arrives, and the goods so entered are reshipped in their original packages to the ports where the owners severally reside, or to other ports of the U nited States. The entries are consequently made upon such i n voices as are forwarded to the agent or consignee, of tike correctness of which he is wholly ignorant. The goods thus reshipped in the origi- nal packages, having undergone no examination, are not subjected at the port to which they are reshipped to that kind of examination which they would have undergone had they arrived directly from a foreign port. The importer, therefore, not only avoids the necessity of swear- ing to the correctness of the invoices, but also eludes the vigilance of the custom-house, as his merchandise, at the port where it is opened and sold, has acquired the character of articles upon which the duties have been paid or secured. Cases of this kind have so greatly increased since the war, that it is difficult to avoid ascribing the increase in some de- gree to motives incompatible with the high character for integrity, and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XIII respect for the laws, which the American merchants as a body have so justly acquired. 1 ‘There is some reason to believe that evasions are sometimes practised under the color of discounts allowed on the prices charged in the in- voices. Under the Treasury regulations no conditional discounts are allowed ; but it is extremely difficult to ascertain whether they are absolute or unconditional. 1 k In order to provide an adequate remedy against the frauds and eva- sions whi ch already exist, and to prevent their further increase, it is re- spectfully submitted that provisions to the following effect be adopted. ” Whereupon Mr. Crawford submitted to Congress twenty-four amend- ments to the law then existing and regulating the collection of duties, nearly all of which were embodied in the act of 1818. The ninth and tenth suggested amendments were these : “9. In all cases where there shall be just grounds to suspect that goods paying ad valorem duties, have been invoiced below their actual costs, the collector shall order them to be appraised in the manner already described ; if the appraisement shall exceed by per cent, the invoice prices, then, in addition to the per cent, laid upon correct and regular invoices by the existing laws, there shall be added per cent, upon the appraised value, upon which aggregate amount the duties shall be estimated. “10. One-half the duties accruing upon such additional ten per cent, shall be distributed according to law between the custom-house officers of the port.’ 7 In addition to these twenty-four suggestions, a great part of which now, together with the law of 1799, constitutes the framework of the machinery for the collection of duties, Mr. Crawford advised Congress that : “Whatever may be the reliance which ought to be placed in the efficacy of the foregoing provisions, it is certainly prudent to diminish, as far as practicable, the list of articles paying ad valorem duties. The best examination which circumstances have permitted, has resulted in the conviction that the following list of articles now paying ad va- lorem duties may be subjected to specific duties.” Mr. Crawford specifies over one hundred articles, the list of which is printed in his report, whereon he advised that the rates be changed from ad valorem to specific. As to the invoice : The law of 1818 forbade the admission to entry of any foreign merchandise, subject to ad valorem rates, excepting when from a wreck, if “the original invoice thereof” shall not be presented, unless the Head of the Department assented, and provided that on entry the name of the real owner shall be declared, and an oath taken that the invoice exhibits the “true value,” in the actual condition of the mer- chandise and the true value at the place from which brought hither. Nothing was said of date. If the owner was the manufacturer, he must swear that the invoice price is “the current value at the place of man- ufacture,” (no allusion to date,) “and such as he would have received if the same had been there sold in the usual course of trade.” As to appraisement : Two official appraisers were authorized at each of six ports, who, with a resident merchant chosen by the importer, should appraise all ad valorem merchandise suspected by the collector to be under-invoiced, and, if the appraised value exceeded by twenty- XIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. five per cent, the invoiced value, then fifty per cent, should be added to the appraised value, and one-half of the duty caused by the increase should be divided among the three chief officers of the port. But if the appraisal should be less than the invoice value, the rates should, neverthe- less, be levied on the invoice value. In this enactment is to be seen the germ of many of the exist- ing intricate and complicated contrivances to baffle frauds. It re- quired one package of every invoice to be opened, (which was a new requirement,) and also one of every fifty, and if found not to correspond with, or to be falsely charged in the invoice, then a full inspection of every package, and if in any package should be found an article hot described in the invoice then that package should be confiscated. No new penalties were inflicted in 1818 for, or new definitions made of, false invoices. The law-makers chiefly confined their efforts to ap- praisements, and to increase of dutiable value if there was under- invoicing. EFFORTS TO PREVENT CUSTOMS FRAUDS AFTER 1818 AND UP TO 1861. 1823. — The law of 1823 formulated two oaths, — one for purchased and another for consigned goods ; required the manufacturers to swear to “fair market value’ 7 at time , and place, of procurement ; declared that the first ajjpraisal shall be by official appraisers, and a rea^praisement, if called for, shall be by them, associated with two merchants employed by the importer, with right of an appeal to the Secretary of the Treas- ury if desired, but added that the duty shall, in no case, be levied on less than the invoice value. The 13th Section substantially repeated the requirement, which had been previously enacted in 1818, that, if the appraised value exceeded by twenty -five per centum the invoice prices thereof then there should be added fifty per centum to the ap- praised value, on which aggregate amount the duties should be esti- mated. 1828. — At the end of the tariff law of 1828 there were inserted new regulations for appraisals, and especially of merchandise unfinished in manufacture. In the ninth section, the rule, prescribed in 1818, which directed that if the appraised value exceeded by twenty -five per cent, the invoiced price, there should be added fifty per cent, to the ap- praised value, in order to make dutiable value, was changed, so that if the appraised value exceeded by ten per cent, the invoice value, then, in addition to the regular duty to be imposed if the merchandise had been invoiced at its real value, “there shall be levied fifty per cent, of the duty to be imposed when fairly invoiced. 77 1830. — In 1830 the appraising force in New York, Philadelphia and Boston was enlarged ; power was given to the collector to order a reap- praisement if he “ shall deem any appraisement of goods too low, 7 7 which last was then a new power. In the third section, a new and special con- trivance was made for goods “of which wool or cotton shall be a com- ponent part, 77 and when fabrics “of similar kind but different quality are found in the same package, 77 which was repealed in 1832, and is in section 2911 of the Revised Statutes. The appraisers were required to adopt the value of the best article in the package as the average value of the whole. The fourth section of this law made a new departure in requiring collectors to cause one package out of every invoice, and one package at least out of every twenty packages of each invoice, and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XV a greater number should he deem it necessary, (it is repeated in a modi- fied form in Section 2899, Revised Statutes,) which packages shall be designated by him, to be opened and examined, and if the same should be found not to correspond with the invoice, or to be falsely charged in such invoice, then all the packages contained in the same entry must be inspected; and if any “ invoice be made up with intent, by a false valuation, or extension, or otherwise, to evade or defraud the revenue, the same shall be forfeited. 7 ’ This forfeiture provision, it will be seen, applied to an invoice of consigned goods, as well as to an invoice of purchased goods, and declared that if the invoice be intentionally made by any device whatsoever to evade the revenue, all the merchandise contained therein shall be confiscated. But this law of 1830 repealed the previous laws of 1818 and 1823, and every other law, which imposed an additional duty, or penalty, of fifty per centum, upon duties on any goods which might be appraised at twenty-five per centum above their invoice price. 1832. — The tariff law of July 14, 1832, after much alteration of the rates of duty, devoted a dozen more sections to a modification of the then-existing system of collecting those rates. Among the more im- portant of the new executive powers conferred is that contained in the eighth section authorizing the appraisers to call any person before them and answer questions which the appraiser may deem material in ascer- taining the value of imported merchandise, and also requiring an im- porter to produce any ‘‘letters, accounts, or invoices in his possession relating to the same,” and forfeiting the merchandise if such owner, importer or consignee shall swear falsely. This provision was enlarged, by the law of 1842, and, as then enacted, is embodied in sections 2922, 2923, and 2924 of the Revised Statutes. The power conferred by these sections in the Revised Statutes upon all appraising officers, including the Collector and Naval Officer, to call witnesses before them in order to ascertain market value, and to require the production “of any let- ters, accounts or invoices” relating to the same, is very large. It applies to every class of importations, goods purchased or not pur- chased. What questions shall be asked is wholly within the discretion of the Appraiser or the Collector or Naval Officer, as the case may be. If any person called as a witness be not the owner, importer or con- signee of the merchandise, and he refuse to answer any question, the law inflicts a penalty of one hundred dollars for each refusal. If the person interrogated be the owner, importer or consignee, and if he refuse to answer any question put to him, or to produce “any letters, accounts or invoices in his possession,” that may be called for, the appraisal made is final and conclusive and there can be no reappraisement ; and if the answer be wilfully and corruptly false the merchandise shall be forfeited. I am at a loss to know why these sections have not been and are not now more frequently enforced in New York, and 1 would respectfully commend an inquiry into the reason to those members of either House of Congress who have in years past been familiar with the administration of this Department. 1833. — The origin and history of the tariff legislation of March 2, 1833, teach a lesson which may I think be serviceable to day. That law was, as I assume, a compromise between the contentions of the manu- facturing and the non-manufacturing interests of 1833, which conten- tions had engendered and inflamed alarming sectional passions. By it was ordained a ratable annual reduction of the rates prescribed in 1832, XVI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. whenever those rates exceeded 20 per cent, ad valorem, which reduc- tion was to begin on December 31, 1833, and continue without pause till June 30, 1842, when all rates were to be reduced to not more than 20 per cent. It directed that, after June 30, 1842, (1) “all duties shall be collected in cash and all credits be abolished, ’ ’ and (2) “ that the duties thereafter laid shall only be such as may be needed for an 1 economical administration , ? ’ ’ and (3) that 1 L all rates shall be ad valorem, but levied on the value ‘ at the port where the goods shall be entered. ’ ? ’ On Septem- ber 11, 1841, Congress was, by the condition of the Treasury, compelled to levy 20 per cent, ad valorem on articles then free, or paying less than 20 per cent., and on August 30, 1842, came the general tariff law of that date which entirely disregarded the pledges of what might be deemed a permanent compromise made in 1833. A system of levying ad valorem rates on u home values’ 7 was thus in force from June 30, 1842, to August 30, 1842, as the Supreme Court decided, in Aldridge vs. Williams , (3 Howard, 23,) Mr. Justice McLean dissenting, and insisting that there was no law, or lawful machinery, between June and Septem- ber, for ascertaining “home values.” The records of this Department, especially the circular letters and reports of my predecessor, Mr. Levi Woodbury, show, during the last years of the life of the “Compromise” arrangement of 1833, Avhen the average rates were approaching, or had reached, the limit of 20 per centum, that LJse invoices, undervalua- tions, and the nameless and numberless devices to circumvent, baffle and defraud the Treasury, when attempting to apply an ad valorem system, were in lively and successful operation. Much the same things were said and done then about customs frauds, in and out of Congress, by manufacturers and importers, their agents and representatives, as are done and said now in 1886, so uniform are recurrent events in the life of a government as of individuals, and so small in circumference are the circles of human transactions. The tariff law of 1842 was approved by the President in August of that year. In the previous February, Mr. Millard Fillmore, then Chair- man of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House, sent to my predecessor, Mr. Forward, the following communication : “Committee-Room of Ways and Means, 1 L February 26, 1842. “Sir: I am instructed by the Committee of Ways and Means to re- quest you to communicate to them any plan which you may have for raising the necessary amount of revenue for defraying the expenses of Government, by an increase of duties on importations, or by auction duties on goods imported, or otherwise ; also any plan, or view, which you may have on .the subject of home valuation, cash duties, a ware- housing system, or any other matters incidentally connected with these subjects, and, especially, any information which can be afforded by your Department as to the particular article imported which will best bear an increase of duty, and the amount of such increase. “As the Committee are now ready to take this subject under con- sideration, they would be happy to receive your views at as early a day as possible.” A month later the House of Representatives by resolution required the Secretary of the Treasury to communicate to the House “the plans, views and information and matters called for,” in the foregoing letter. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XVII On May 9, 1842, Mr. Forward made an elaborate report, portions of Avhich are pertinent to-day. He declined to express an opinion on the proposition to tax “sales at auction of goods imported, 7 7 with a view to increase the revenue. That form of tax was evidently aimed at foreign manufacturers, and intended to impede consignment of their products to this country. He insisted that the scheme of “home valuation 77 was impracticable. He advised a continuation of ad valorem rates, guarding them “from abuse by ad- ditional precautions against fraudulent invoices. 77 He urged, as one reason for increased rates of duty on imports, the necessity of enlarging the then-existing system of national defence. He estimated that the total amount of annual imports into the country for the years 1842, 1843 and 1844, would be about ninety-three millions of dollars. He advised duties on tea and coffee to be limited to three years. The fol- lowing extracts from the report of Mr. Forward, made nearly half a century ago, are instructive now, by way of showing his appreciation of the relation between ad valorem and specific rates, and the light in which foreign manufacturers sending their goods to this country on consignment were then regarded : ‘ 1 With a view to guard the revenue against fraudulent undervaluations which cannot be entirely prevented by the existing scheme of ad valorem duties, specific duties are proposed in nearly all cases when practicable. The operation of the system of specific duties may not be perfectly equal in all cases, in respect to the value of the articles included under it. But this inconvenience is more than compensated by the security of the revenue against evasions, and by the tendency of specific duties to exclude worthless and inferior articles, by which purchasers and con- sumers are' often imposed on. “In assessing ad valorem duties the foreign value of goods imported has been assumed as a basis of the duty. In ascertaining this value by appraisement, it is attempted to place some new guards on the reve- nue. But it may be worthy of consideration, whether it would not be advisable to adopt a regulation by which the option should be given to the Collector in cases where supposed undervaluation in the invoices exists, to take the goods for the use of the Government, on paying the importer for the same at the value mentioned in the invoice, together with an advance of ten per cent, thereon, and the average of costs and charges on the importation of similar goods. “A material, and indeed a fundamental consideration, which recon- ciled a large portion of the country to the compromise act, was the home valuation which it promised. This consideration having failed, all parties are at liberty to project such new scheme for the adjustment of duties on imports as the common interest may demand. But in at- tempting such adjustment, the spirit of concession and forbearance, which should characterize every measure bearing extensively upon various and sometimes conflicting interests, or speaking perhaps with more propriety, in this instance, of conflicting opinions, ought to be observed. In this respect, and this only, can the great principles which entered into the compromise act be substantially carried out. “The system of cash duties, although a material condition in the arrangement of the compromise act, must now stand upon its own in- trinsic merits. In this view alone it is recommended to Congress. The abolition of custom-house credits is a measure sustained by reasons which appear to the Department to be conclusive. In order to appre- S. Ex. 72 ii XVIII RKPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ciate the advantages of a cash system, it may be well to premise that more than one -half of all the imports from Europe, and a considerable portion of those from other countries, are on foreign account In some branches of the import business (silks for instance) American mer- chants have given place almost entirely to foreigners. The causes which have induced this state of things are various, and may not be equally operative. It is believed, however, that among these causes, our credit system may not have been without some influence. But, waiving all discussion of this point at present, the fact that so large an amount of the import business is now in foreign hands, and that the advantages, if any, of the credit system accrue in a great measure to them, is a consideration not to be disregarded. Another considera- tion of great weight in this matter is the circumstance that the fluctua- tions and revulsions so frequently experienced in our great marts of foreign commerce, the effects of which have been as often felt through- out the whole country, are to be ascribed to some extent, to the facilities afforded by our system of custom-house credits. They are, for all prac- tical purposes, a loan of money to the amount of the duties, by the Gov- ernment to the importing merchant. The credit itself becomes a capital in trade, and serves to stimulate and progressively enlarge that portion of the import business which rests wholly on a fictitious basis. 4 “ It may be true that men of small capital, or without any capital at all, would be benefited by obtaining credit from the Government ; but it is not less true that the claim to this extraordinary indulgence, if it exist at all, attaches solely to the American merchant, and belongs in no way to foreigners. It is, moreover, worthy of remark, that in a sound condition of the trade when foreign supplies are really called for by the wants of the country, the means of paying the duties are insured by the prospect of a ready market, or may be obtained upon the credit and responsibility of the importer, in the community where he resides. If he does not possess this credit or responsibility among his neighbors, there appears no very good reason why he should be trusted by the Government. The security which he offers in the one case would be equally attainable in the other. “The system of credits, established in the infancy of our commerce, when there was but little capital in the country, and the import busi- ness was on a footing entirely different from what it now is, might have been productive of real advantage. But the state of things which attended its establishment no longer continues. Capital is sufficiently abundant for supplying the country with foreign products, and much of the trade itself has been shifted from American to foreign hands. “Among the direct advantages expected to arise from the cash sys- tem is its tendency to check overtrading, and to restrain importations within limits indicated by the wants of the country and the probable amount of its exchangable surplus. It needs no labored argument or research to prove that the present embarrassment in all our departments of labor and enterprise have arisen very much from overtrading, nor does it require much discussion to show that the spirit of overtrading and reckless adventure has been favored by the system of custom-house credits. 7 7 1842. — In the highly protective tariff law of 1842 there w^ere many new devices to prevent and punish false invoices of merchandise paying ad valorem rates, and also to secure correct appraisals. The sixteenth section is, as has just been said, substantially a re-enactment of the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XIX seventh section of the law of 1832, except that the latter requires an appraisement to be made according to the market value or wholesale price at the time when purchased, in the principal markets of the country whence the same shall have been imported into the United States, instead of the actual value at the place of exportation , as in 1832, or actual cost at such place as in 1799. It restored the contrivance dropped in 1830, to levy an additional or penal duty if the appraised value exceeded the invoice value ; it declared that if the appraised value should exceed by ten per centum or more the invoice value, then in addition to the regular duty there should be levied fifty per centum of the duty imposed upon the same when fairly invoiced. By another section, the several collectors were authorized, whenever they should deem it necessary to protect the revenue against frauds or undervalua- tion, and the same was practicable, to take the amount of duties charge- able on any article bearing an ad valorem rate of duty in the article itself, and cause the merchandise so taken to be sold at public auction within twenty days. Jn another section was enacted, for the first time, a provision of law now known and substantially repeated in 1883, as the 44 Similitude Section.” Another section made the requirements in respect to the examination of invoices and packages more severe. 1846. — In 1846 came a purely ad valorem tariff, in which all im- ported merchandise was for the first time classified in schedules. In the eighth section an important change was made. Previous laws had, as it has been seen, either increased the dutiable value when the appraised value exceeded the invoice value, or, as in 1842, had levied a penal duty. All our laws have in effect required that the entry paper presented at the custom-house be a transcript of the invoice. It was felt to be unjust to punish an importer by an additional rate of duty if the appraised value exceeded the invoice value, and the im- porter not be permitted to add to the invoice value on entry in order to make it conform to what might be the market value. Therefore the eighth section of the law of 1846 authorized an importer of merchan- dise, 4 4 actually purchased, 7 7 to make on entry such addition therein 4 4 to the cost or value given in the invoice as in his opinion may raise the same to the true market value in the principal markets of the country whence the importation shall have been made, or in which the import shall have been originally manufactured, or produced, as the case may be. 7 7 The same section added the requirement that if the appraised value should exceed by ten per centum or more the invoice value, then a penal duty of twenty per cent, should be inflicted, but, 4 4 under no cir- cumstances shall the duties be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice value, any law of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding. 77 Under this law a question arose, which was decided by the Supreme Court in Greely vs. Thompson (10 How., 225) to the effect that by the laws of 1842 and 1846 the value of merchandise is to be ascertained as of the time of its procurement, and not as of the time of its exportation. The opinion of the Court was delivered at the December Term, 1850. The importation was of railroad-iron, manufactured in Wales, and made ready for shipment to agents in Boston, on January 24th, 1849. The invoice and bill of lading of the iron were dated February 24th, 1849. The invoice value of the iron was five pounds per ton. That was proved to be the fair market price on January 24th, 1849, when the merchandise was procured and ready for shifnnent. The Treasury Department in- structed the appraisers that the valuation should be as of February 24th, XX REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 1849, the date of shipment, and thereupon the appraisers fixed the value at five pounds fifteen shillings per ton, which was more than ten per cent, above the invoice value, and a penal duty was exacted, which was paid under protest and a suit brought to recover the differ- ence, as well as the penal duty. It was also proved on the trial that, during the month that intervened between the procurement and ship- ment of the iron, one of those extraordinary fluctuations in prices took place by which similar iron rose in value nearly twenty per cent. The Court, decided that, according to the law’s in force at the time the im- portation was made, the penalty of twenty per cent, only applied to purchased goods, and did not apply to goods consigned by a manufact- urer, and therefore a penalty could not be levied on this importation. In giving these reasons for the decision that the date of procurement, and not the date of exportation, w r as the time when the appraisers must fix dutiable value, the Court said : “ Indeed, it would seem reasonable, independent of the express lan- guage of the acts of Congress, that if uncertainty remained about the true construction of the fifth section of the act of 1823, the proper time for fixing the value of goods should be considered the time they were purchased or procured, because the idea of having the value and charges fixed, and assessing the duty on them, is to tax the importer on the amount, or value, he has expended. And what he has expended cannot be more than he has thus paid ; and the invoice itself, often prepared in the interior, days and weeks before the vessel sails, states the price, or value, as then made up, and not at the time of the bill of lading, when the market value may be higher or lower. We do not find that the value at the time of exportation of goods of the growth or manufacture of the country whence exported, has ever been selected by any act of Congress for purposes of assessing the duty. * * * The value on which to tax the importer is the capital, or price, he has invested in the goods, and which is prima facie the amount paid if purchased, or the amount for which they were procured if not purchased.” That would seem to imply that a manufacturer could invoice at cost price. 1851. — In 1851 there was an enactment made which changed the pol- icy of the previous laws, as expounded by the Supreme Court in the opinion from which quotation has just been made. The first section of the act of March 3d, 1851, declared that in all cases where any ad va- lorem rate shall be imposed, the collector shall “cause the market value or wholesale price thereof at the period of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same shall have been imported,” to be appraised. The same law created four General Appraisers, to be employed in visiting the several ports under the direction of the Head of this Department, and said that, whenever practicable, reappraisals shall be determined by one of these General Appraisers associated with a merchant selected by the Collector; and, if the two disagree, the Collector shall decide between them. By this enactment, the power of appeal to the Head of this De- partment in reappraisals, and his power to finally fix dutiable value, were taken away. 1856. — In 1856, Congress not having amended the law levying penal duty, which law had been decided by the Supreme Court as not appli- cable to merchandise consigned by the manufacturer, my predecessor, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXI Mr. Guthrie, on July 22d, 1856, urged the amendment upon Congress. In his letter of that date he said : “As the law now stands, therefore, upon the construction which the Courts appear to be trying to give to it, the foreign manufacturer, or producer, is not subject to an additional duty for undervaluation. The importer who purchases in the foreign market and imports into the United States is. The foreign manufacturer, or producer, in any experiments he may choose to try upon the public revenue by under- valued invoices, runs no risk of additional duty, to which his competi- tor, the American merchant, who purchased the imports abroad, is ex- posed. This discrimination against the domestic importer in favor of the foreign is as impolitic as it is unjust. Foreign manufacturers, or producers, by establishing partners or agents in this country, importing and entering imports on their own account, and then making sales in pursuance of orders previous or subsequent to the entry, can thus sup- ply our markets with their own products without being subjected to any adequate check against undervaluation. For, while they are not subject to the additional duty in such cases, to which the domestic im- porter is liable, nor, indeed, to any additional duty, upon the construc- tion of the law which seems to be favored by the Courts, they could be reached only by forfeiture of their goods in cases in which the badge of fraud was so clear that the United States would have no difficulty in showing that fact.” Thus foreign manufacturers excited solicitude and anxiety in 1856 ! In consequence of this representation by the Head of this Department, the second section of the law of March 3d, 1857, was enacted, so that a penalty could be inflicted on goods consigned by a manufacturer. In the proviso of that act there was an additional change. Theretofore the statute had said that duty should not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice value, but the enactment of 1857 declared “that, under no circumstances, shall the duty be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice, or entered , value, any law of Congress to the contrary not- withstanding.” The tariff law of 1846 was a tariff of comparatively low ad valorem rates, but under it undervaluations seem to have abounded. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PRESENTATION OF FALSE INVOICES AFTER 1861. After 1857, the first and most important enactment to secure the pre- sentation of truthful invoices, and to punish those who presented false invoices, was that of March 3d, 1863 (Chapter LXXVI), which required all invoices to be made in triplicate. It greatly broadened the character of the offence for the commission of which confiscation was denounced, by declaring that if any owner, consignee, or agent of any merchandise shall knowingly make or attempt to make, an entry by means of a false invoice, or a false certificate of a consular officer, or by means of any false document or paper, or by any false or fraudulent practice or appliance whatsoever, said merchandise, or its value, shall be forfeited. There was allowed to the District Attorneys two per cent, upon all moneys realized by any forfeiture suit conducted by them. Judges of the Federal District Courts were authorized to issue warrants directed to the Collector of the port empowering him, or his agents, to seize the merchant’s books or papers relating to revenue frauds, and carry them XXII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. away to be inspected, to which last, legislation, and its amendments in 1866 and 1867, I have referred at length in my Annual Report,- (p. LII.) It is to be borne in mind, that at the time of this enactment in 1863, all persons were, under the law of 1799, stimulated by the prospect of realizing one-fourth of the net proceeds of the forfeiture, to give the Government information of contemplated, or perpetrated, frauds upon the customs revenue, and that each of the three chief officers of the customs at each port was encouraged to make seizures by a share of the result, if the prosecution resulted favorably to the United States. Although the legislation of 1863 was severe, and although it broke down ten years later by its own weight, yet it probably operated in fact to deter merchants from the presentation of false invoices, and in enabling the Executive to more thoroughly execute the tariff laws dur- ing the period of the Civil War, than would have been possible with- out such deterrent legislation. It may be explained, at that critical period in the history of the country, by much the same reasons as the forced recruitment of soldiers, the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus in certain places, and other restrictions upon the individual liberty of the citizen, or of an alien sojourning in the country, were defended. 1874. — In 1874 all the provisions of law under which moieties of any fines, penalties or forfeitures under the customs- revenue laws, or any share therein, or any commission thereon were paid to informers, or officers of the customs, were repealed. All power to make Executive inquisition into the books or papers of importers was taken away, and the power of Courts and juries to inflict confiscation was greatly abridged. The previous law had forfeited all the merchandise on an invoice if any item thereof was made with a deliberate intent to defraud the revenue, but the legislation of 1874 restricted confiscation to the package con- taining the article to which the fraud related. But, apart from ’those things, the law of 1874 was comprehensive by declaring that any person who should 4 4 with intent to defraud the revenue make, or attempt to make, an entry of imported merchandise, by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, affidavit, letter or paper, or by means of any false statement, written or verbal,” or 44 who shall be guilty of any wilful act of omission, by means whereof the United States shall be deprived of the legal du- ties, or of any portion thereof, accruing upon the merchandise or any portion thereof embraced or referred to in such invoice, affidavit, letter, paper or statement, or affected by such act of omission, shall, for each offence be fitied in any sum not exceeding five thousand dollars nor less than fifty dollars, or be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, or both, and in addition to such fine, such merchandise shall be forfeited. ’ ’ WHY HAVE NOT CUSTOMS FRAUDS BEEN PUNISHED? Such is the law to-day. Certainly the language used in the act of 1874, is broad enough to cover each and all of the offences, whether of false invoices or false valuations, about which so much is now heard. This law has been in force during the last eleven years and more. If false invoices, false statements, or other wilful acts by means of which this Government is, or has been, deprived of its lawful duties on im- ported merchandise, have so abounded during the last ten or five, or three years, or one year, how, or why, has it happened that so few EE VI SION OF THE TARIFF. XXIII prosecutions, for confiscation of the inculpated merchandise, or for criminal punishment of individuals, have been undertaken 1 ? If any class in the community, whether manufacturers or importers, or if any individuals in the community, whether in office or out of office, are, or have been, cognizant of these frauds, why have not the charges and specifications been made to the Treasury Department, or to Collectors of Customs, or to District Attorneys, thereby compelling the attempted imprisonment of the offenders, and confiscation of the offending property. I was perplexed by inquiries of this character while engaged in the preparation of my Annual Report, and I am still perplexed by them. Out of an effort to come to a satisfactory conclusion therein in my own mind, came the series of inquiries which I addressed to customs offi- cers in the several collection districts, and to law officers in the several judicial districts, the replies to which I transmitted to Congress. In that document I omitted nothing contained in the records of this De- partment which I thought would aid Congress in coming to a safe con- clusion. To that end 1 included in the document what seemed to me the conflicting views of the several agents of this Department, on the one hand, and of the local officers in the several collection districts on the other hand. The opinions of these two classes of officers, it will be observed, came from those who had been for a long time in the ser- vice of the Government and had been responsible for the execution of the customs laws before I became the Head of this Department. I presented facts and statistics tending to show that prosecutions and in- dictments for customs frauds, which had been many and continuous from 1863 to 1874, suddenly ceased after that date. It will be observed, for example, that the Collector of. the port of Boston, from 1882 to 1886 ; reported to me (p. 468) under date of September 16, 1885 : “I have no evidence, neither have I been able to procure any, that the duties have not within the last few years, been levied and collected as the law prescribes. I have no evidence, neither have I been able to procure any, that the full amount of duty prescribed by Congress has not been collected.” The Naval Officer and the Surveyor at the port of Boston appear to have substantially concurred in this opinion. And yet Mr. Bingham, who had been Special Agent in that Collection District from 1869 to 1885, reported to me (p. 385) on September 21, 1885 : “There is abundant evidence in the records of the Department and the several custom-houses that various kinds of imported merchandise have, within the last few years, been entered and passed at lower rates than those prescribed by iaw.” My attention having been called to the divergence, if not positive conflict of opinion, between the Special Agent and the Collector at the port of Boston, I addressed to Special Agent Bingham, under date of October 2d, 1885, a second inquiry calculated to call for a revision of his opinion, as to any differences that might exist between himself and the chief customs officers at the port of Boston. In his second reply Mr. Bingham substantially reiterated his previous opinions, and added that “Undervaluation is the rule rather than the exception.” A similar divergence or conflict of opinion may be said, I think, to exist generally throughout the country between the Special Agents and the chief officers at the several ports. The replies of the appraising XXIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. officers, including the examiners at the port of New York, which are published in the volumes referred to, are especially noteworthy in this connection as tending to deny or ignore the existence of undervalua- tions or frauds at that port, such as exist in the opinions of the special agents, and of so many manufacturers and importers. Great stress has been laid upon the sixteenth section of the act of 1874, because, as is alleged by many, it made successful prosecutions for forfeiture impossible, by reason of the provision that the jury must specially find intent, and because it shifted the burden of proof upon the prosecution. In that regard I think the letter which Mr. Justice Blatchford so kindly addressed to me in reply to my inquiry (p. 868) is most important. That sixteenth section of the law of 1874 only re- quired the Court to submit to the jury as a distinct and separate prop- osition, whether the alleged acts were done with an actual intention to defraud the United States, and to require on such proposition a special finding by such jury. If frauds have been within the last few years, and now are, perpetrated upon the customs revenue, of such a char- acter as are generally indicated, I am at a loss to understand how, with adequate knowledge on the part of those who are cognizant of those facts, and also on the part of prosecuting officers, the sixteenth section can be a serious impediment in the way of confiscation. The aver- ment is, as I understand it, that foreign manufacturers and others deliberately, knowingly, intelligently and intentionally prepare in- voices, and cause them to be presented at the custom houses in this country, which do not, and that those who prepare such invoices know that they do not, contain the prices which the laws of this country require to be inserted in such invoices, but that lower prices are, with guilty knowledge, inserted in such invoices in order to evade the payment of duties known to be chargeable thereon, and to defraud the revenue of the United States. If such facts actually exist, they must be within the knowledge of persons in this country who can produce, or enable the Government to produce, the proof thereof, and if produced and presented to a Court and jury in New York, or in any other judicial district, I am unwilling to believe, and do not believe, that there would be a failure of justice by a refusal of juries to return a verdict which would enable the Court to pronounce a condemnation. I do not wish to be understood as expressing the opinion that such frauds have not been perpetrated within the last few years in great abundance, or that they are not now perpetrated. But why have not more prosecutions been attempted? One reason maybe that under the existing law there is no one with sufficient motive, or inducement, I will not say' sufficient fidelity to the Government, to make the pre- liminary seizure which must be made before the property can be taken possession of by a Marshal on a warrant issued by the Court. It is not possible for the Head of this Department to make such seizures in any or all of the one hundred and sixteen collection districts of the country, nor is it practicable for the Head of this Department to direct that such seizures be made. The law contemplates that one whose property is seized shall have a remedy for an unlawful and an unjustifiable seizure, by a suit against the one who makes it. The law prudently requires that there shall be an actual seizure before a libel of prosecution is filed, inasmuch as if a seizure by order of the Court is the first seizure made, the person injured cannot bring a suit for damage against the Court. If the Head of this Department should REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXV direct a seizure to be made by a customs officer, it would be unjust to bold that officer responsible in damages for an unjustifiable seizure which was made by command of his superior officer. I am not aware of any statute which authorizes a warrant to be drawn to pay a judgment recovered against a person making a customs seizure, if that seizure shall have been pronounced by the judgment unjustifiable. Under the moiety law, as it existed from 1799 to 1874, the officers of the customs appear to have been willing to take that risk. The arrange- ments of the law of 1799 by which the distribution of a share of the proceeds of forfeitures to informers, was a judicial act, wherein the informer could vindicate his rights in Court , tended to uncover and display to the Government information in regard to attempted or per- petrated customs frauds, the obtaining of which is now practically im- possible. It is, I repeat, impracticable for the Head of this Department to make seizures, or order them to be made, or make affidavits charging criminal offences, but I am authorized to say that if any responsible citizen , — manufacturer or importer , — will present charges and specifications showing probable cause to believe that a fraud on the customs revenue has been knowingly perpetrated , the whole power of the Executive will be immediately brought to bear , and vigorously applied , on the criminal and civil side of the Court , in order to bring the accused to condign punishment. NEW COERCION LAWS NEARLY COINCIDENT WITH INCREASED AD VALO- REM RATES DOWN TO 1874. — NEED OF SIMPLIFICATION. It will be observed from the historical review which has been at- tempted of the tariff legislation of the country from the organization of the Government down to the present day, that increasing severity of legislation to prevent customs frauds has come down to us side by side with a raising of the rates of duty, and with an enlargement of the ap- plication of ad valorem rates. The true inference to be drawn from that fact cannot, I think, fail to appear. There will be persons who do not, or will pretend they do not, under- stand a law which works to their disadvantage, no matter how clear it may be, but I think there are those who are really and honestly con- fused by the technical and artificial character of a part of our pres- ent customs legislation. I am continually impressed by the fact that so many apparently well-meaning persons, in letters to this Department, write as if they really believed that all invoices, whether of purchased or of consigned goods, must contain the actual cost, which is true of purchased goods, but is not true of consigned goods. A few manufact- urers appear to believe that as a purchaser must invoice at actual cost , so must a manufacturer whose goods are sent here on consignment. There is much also in what is said and done by our consular officers abroad, which leads one to fear that too many of them do not under- stand, or even try to understand, the legal distinction between the two classes of invoices. Our laws require a manufacturer to declare in his invoice the fair mar- ket value at the time when, and the place where the goods were manu- factured. It is quite possible that the time of manufacture may ante- date by many months, or even by years, the date of the starting of the merchandise on its way to this country. Up to 1851, as has been shown, our laws required the invoice to be of the day of purchase, or procure- XXVI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ment, or manufacture ; but since 1851 the appraisal is made as of the time of exportation to the United States. _ It may well enough happen that goods, whose value is influenced by the fashion of the day, were manufactured in 1883 or 1884, but consigned in 1886, or when out of fashion in Europe. Under such circumstances, the manufacturer too often inserts in his invoice the value at the time of shipment , or even less than that value, instead of the value at the date of manufacture , although our law requires that the value shall be on the day when the manufacture of the merchandise was com- pleted. The inconvenience, and pelhaps the injustice, of our existing law, are seen in this : A manufacturer cannot on entry reduce the in- voice value, although he may add to it to make market value and save a penalty ; the Appraiser may return to the Collector a value less than the invoice value, but our Collector must, nevertheless, levy duty on not less than the entered value. One can readily see how useful to the Appraisers it would be to have before them a declaration by the manu- facturer of the market value of merchandise on the day its manufacture was completed, but in order to make that information valuable the in- voice should specify the date of the manufacture, which no invoice, as I am informed, ever does. I respectfully suggest the inquiry whether the law, requiring a man- ufacturer sending merchandise hither on consignment to declare in his invoice the value at the time of manufacture , cannot safely be changed so as to require him to state the value at the time of shipment , in order that the valuation by the Appraisers and the valuation in the invoice may refer to the same period. The belief is quite general that our law constrains the appraising officers to be controlled by the invoice, whereas the invoice is only insisted upon by the law as a piece of evidence to inform the judg- ment of the appraising officers, and enable them to come to a cor- rect conclusion as to the value of the merchandise on the day which the law requires the appraising officers to regard. The opinion that the invoice value is conclusive, or should be conclusive, upon the ap- praising officers, may have been inspired, or confirmed, by the provis- ion of the law which forbids the collector to levy duty on less than the invoice or entered value, as well as by a disregard of the other require- ment of the law that the appraisers are, by all reasonable ways and means, to ascertain the market value in the foreign country at the date of exportation, any invoice, or affidavit to the contrary notwithstand- ing. In May, 1856, the appraisers at the port of Yew York returned to the Collector a value less than that declared in the entry, and the question was presented to this Department, whether or not the ap- praised value should be taken as the dutiable value. It happened in that case that the importer raised on entry the invoice value, for some reason or other, possibly to avoid an apprehended penalty. This Department, in a letter to the Collector of Yew York, of May 8th, 1856, made this observation : “ I cannot comprehend how it is appraisers can undertake to say that they will disbelieve the importer’s own declaration of value, when he produced his invoice, and when he adds to his invoice value ; and that he, the appraiser, knows better than the importer, and therefore disbelieves him, and finds the value less than he has declared it to be. Persistence in such a course by the appraisers would prove an obliquity of judgment that it is impossible to comprehend or provide against. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXVII The duty cannot be assessed upon less than the increased declared value, no matter- what may be the appraised value returned by the appraisers, and you should report all cases where the appraisers undertake thus to set aside the evidence of the importer’s declaration of value.” As a result of that letter from this Department, the practice began, as I am informed, which has since continued, under which the ap- praising officers, unless satisfied that the entered value is too low, report to the Collector, on the invoice, “Value Correct.” It is a natural inference that if the importer’s declaration of value is to be so controlling in one condition of facts, it ought to be so controlling in another condition of. facts wherein the appraising officers are in doubt whether the invoice valuation is sufficiently high. It may not be safe to mo'dify the existing provision of the law that the Collector shall never take duty on less than the entered value 5 and yet, in the practical working of that law it may happen, under our ad valorem system, that one who buys in Paris a camel’ s-hair shawl, for example, and pays therefor five thousand francs, and enters it for that sum, as the purchaser would be required to do, may be compelled to pay duty on the equivalent in our money of five thousand francs, but that a dealer, buying on the same day, in Paris, and from the same seller another shawl precisely similar, but purchased for four thousand francs, entered and appraised at that sum as the real market value of the shawl, may only be compelled to pay duty thereon, or on a valuation one thousand francs less than the former valuation. These obvious inequalities and hardships are, I think, inherent in any ad valorem system. The experience of the Government in 1817, sixty-nine years ago, when ad valorem rates were less by one-half, if not by two-thirds, than now, and the illuminating report of my prede- cessor, Mr. Crawford, whose correct judgment has been attested by the praise of Mr. Gallatin, warn us that even with a large scaling down of ad valorem rates by a horizontal reduction, or any other reduction, the inequalities and hardships of an ad valorem system, and the attempt- ing or perpetrating of frauds on the revenue are not likely to come to an end. We are living in days when profits to be derived from the carrying on of business, whether it be in buying and selling, or man- facturing merchandise, or in the railway business, or in banking busi- ness, or in brokerage business, or in steamship business, come from the large volume of business done under conditions of very 4 4 thin ’ ’ rates for transacting the business. Thus it happens that a comparatively small sum evaded, or saved, in the payment of duties to the Govern- ment, will be sufficient to make the difference between a profit, or a loss, in importation, and will be sufficient to give victory in the sharp contest between rival importers and dealers. TARIFF LAWS, AND THE TAX LAWS OF NEW YORK. It is said that the present tendency of the practical working of the application of an ad valorem system in the raising of revenue on im- ports is toward a yearly diminution of dutiable or taxable values, and that such yearly diminution, without justifying change in the law, is not an injury to the community, but on the contrary is a benefit to all concerned, and especially to consumers. I cannot take that view. Those who make the assertion to which I refer, appeal to what is ob- viously going on in the assessment of taxes under State laws where the XXVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. valuation is notoriously far below the real valuation. The law of the State of New York (I refer to it because I am more familiar with it than with the laws of other States) declares that u all lands, and all personal estate, within the State, whether owned by individuals or by corporations, shall be liable to taxation,’ 7 subject to certain exemptions, and also that “all real and personal estate, liable to taxation, shall be estimated and assessed by the assessors at its full and true value, as they would appraise the same in payment of a just debt due from a sol- vent debtor. 77 It is undoubtedly true that in the State of New York that law is not fully and completely executed. Personal property es- capes taxation in part, and real estate is undervalued for taxes ; but there is a difference between the customs laws of the United States and the tax laws of the State of New York in the fact*that, whereas, in the former the person owning the property and presenting it for en- try is required, and undertakes, to declare, and to declare under the solemnity of an oath, the real foreign value of his property, yet in the State of New York no such declaration, or declaration of value of any kind, is required from the owner of property. But the most mate- rial difference and distinction are in this : By undertaking to levy uni- form rates and amounts of duty, at each and all of the ports of the United States, upon all similar merchandise arriving therein, the Gov- ernment injuriously interferes with private business if it permits two articles, precisely similar in quality, and arriving by the same vessel, to be appraised for duty at different values at different ports. SENATE BILL NO. 1153. An alternative plan of not attempting to reduce the number of duti- able articles, or prudently substitute specific for ad valorem rates, or eliminate wherever possible the confusion of compound rates, or make more logical and clear requirements on invoices, or strengthen the ap- praising force, or simplify the things to be done by importers and cus- toms officers, but of endeavoring, on the contrary, to enforce the col- lection of existing rates by new and severe coercive laws, is set forth in the Bill now before the Finance Committee of the Senate, “to prevent frauds upon the Customs Bevenue. 77 I desire to call attention to that proposed legislation, not only because it so clearly shows the direction in which Congress must go if coercion rather than tariff-reform is to be the policy, but because it enables me to exhibit the executive aspect of the tariff problem, with which aspect I am now chiefly concerned. The Bill which is now before the Finance Committee of the Senate, is in these words : Section 1. That whenever the dutiable or foreign market value of any article of merchandise imported into the United States, and subject to “ad valorem 77 duty, or to duty based in whole or in part on values, is found by the appraising officer to exceed the invoice or entered value thereof, whether such invoice or entered value shall be set forth in a certified invoice, a “pro forma 77 invoice, or in a statement in the form of an invoice, there shall be levied, collected and paid in addition to the duties now imposed by law on such merchandise a further sum equal to 2 per cent, of the total appraised value for each 1 per cent, of the increased valuation as ascertained by the appraisers in excess of the entered value ; and if such appraised value shall exceed the entered value more than 15 per cent, the entry shall be deemed fraudulent, and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXIX the collector of customs shall seize such merchandise and proceed as in cases of forfeiture for violations of the customs laws. Sec. 2. That in addition to the methods now authorized by law for determining actual foreign market or dutiable value, and to assist in the ascertainment of such value in the appraisal or reappraisement of any article of imported merchandise, wholly or partially manufactured, and subject to “ad valorem 77 duty or to duty based in whole or in part on values, when such merchandise has been consigned by any person or persons in any other country to a person or persons, agent, partner or consignee in the United States, or has been obtained otherwise than by actual purchase in the ordinary course of business, it shall be the duty of the appraiser or appraisers to determine, first, the cost of pro- duction of such merchandise at the time and place of manufacture, such cost of production to include cost of materials and manufacture, all in- cidental expenses, insurance, interest, commissions, superintendence, rent, depreciation of plant, finishing and preparation for shipment, and a reasonable profit for manufacture not less than 10 per centum, and, second, the home value of such merchandise, which shall be ascertained by deducting from the wholesale price thereof in the principal markets of the United States the amount of duties thereon and the cost of trans- portation from the last port of exportation to the port of importation, and in no case shall the dutiable value of such merchandise be appraised upon original appraisal or reappraisement at less than the cost of pro- duction or the home value thereof, ascertained as herein provided. Sec. 3. That if any owner, consignee or agent of any merchandise subject to ad valorem duty or to duty based in whole or in part on value shall knowingly make or attempt to make an entry thereof by means of any false invoice or false certificate, of a consul, vice-consul or com- mercial agent, or of any invoice which does not contain a true statement of the actual cost of such merchandise if purchased or if obtained other- wise than by purchase of the actual market value thereof at the time of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from whence the same has been exported or by means of any other false or fraudulent document or paper, or by means of any other false or fraudulent practice or appliance whatsoever such merchandise or the value thereof shall be forfeited to the United States. Sec. 4. That one-half of all moneys which shall be hereafter paid into the Treasury of the United States from fines, penalties or forfeitures in- curred for violations of the customs- revenue laws, shall constitute a fund from which may be paid from time to time, on the joint order of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, who are hereby created a board for this purpose, such sums as they may in their dis- cretion determine, to meritorious officers of the customs or consular service who shall have been instrumental in the detection or punish- ment of frauds upon the customs revenue, and the Board thereby created shall annually make a report of their doings hereunder to Congress, stating in detail the names of parties to whom has been paid, their positions io the public service, the nature of the services rendered, and amount paid to each. , Sec. 5. That the sixteenth section of the act entitled ‘ ‘ An act to amend the cnstoms-re venue laws and to repeal moieties, 77 approved June 22, 1874, be and the same is hereby repealed. And in all suits or informations brought where any seizure is made pursuant to any act providing for or regulating the collection of duties on imports or ton- XXX REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. nage, if the property is claimed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant, provided that probable cause is shown for such prosecution to be judged of by the courts. Sec. 6. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed. First section. — I respectfully invite a consideration of the question whether confusion and difficulty may not arise in the execution of the first part of this .section if it shall become a law. Under our existing system there is the certified invoice value, which is the minimum value for imposing ad valorem duties. There is the entered value, which, when greater than the invoice value, defines a line of value below which the Collector cannot levy ad valorem rates. There is the market value to be ascertained and reported by the appraising officers. And finally, there is the dutiable value, the decision of which by the Collector under general instructions by the Head of this Department is by law made final and conclusive unless certain steps be taken by the importer. Section seven of the Tariff act of 1883 (which section has recently been before the Supreme Court of the United States for interpretation) con- cerns market and dutiable value. There are other provisions of law, scattered here and there throughout the statutes, which, under certain conditions, may make the dutiable value unlike the market value in the principal markets of the country of exportation, which is to be ascer- tained by the appraisers, and to which last value I assume the first section refers when it uses the phrase “Foreign market value.” Sec- tion 2900 of the Revised Statutes inflicts a penal duty whenever the appraised (not dutiable) value shall exceed by ten per centum or more the entered, value. But the section of the proposed bill now under con- sideration makes a change by levying the penal duty whenever the “appraising officers” shall find that the dutiable value shall exceed the entered value. The language used in describing, and defining, the rate or amount of additional duty Avould be more satisfactory if it indicated to importers, and to the country, more clearly what the ratio of that additional duty will be. The “total appraised value,” referred to in the first section, may not be the same as dutiable value, but is the entered value to be compared, in the infliction of a penalty, with the appraised value, as found by the appraisers, or with the dutiable value, as finally decided by the Collector, and against which a protest, appeal and suit can be applied ! RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEIZURES. The last clause of the first section covers a large range of inquiry, not only into the existing law but into the existing machinery for its enforcement. The legal effect, in practical administration, of the last clause of the first section of the proposed bill, if it shall become a law, will be, to require the Collector to seize all merchandise embraced in an entry whenever the appraising officer shall report to him an appraised value which shall exceed the entered value by more than fifteen per cent. , and to report the seizure to the District Attorney for prosecution. The section does not declare distinctly whether the Col- lector shall seize upon a report by the local appraiser, or whether he shall await a reappraisal, or whether if the two reappraisers disagree he shall await his own decision between them. If the law commands the Collector to seize merchandise on a report to him by an appraising REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXXI officer of a specific fact, to wit, a difference of fifteen per centum between the entered and the appraised value of merchandise, then the Collector should not be held responsible in damages for the consequences of the seizure. The fifth section of the proposed law provides for burden of proof in case probable cause is shown for the prosecution. But# if the law peremptorily commands the Collector to seize, it is to be inferred that no Court will say that a probable cause did not exist for a seizure specifi- cally commanded by the law. What will be the effect of the proposed first section, on a trial for forfeiture under a seizure made in obedience to the section'? The third section punishes by forfeiture an entry “knowingly made or attempted to be made by a false invoice.” Is not the jury to pass upon the question of guilty knowledge! But if the law declares that every entry of merchandise “shall be deemed fraudulent” if the appraised value shall exceed the entered value by more than fif- teen per cent., what discretion will be left to the jury if the evidence shall be that the appraised value did thus exceed the entered value! I shall return to this branch of the subject again when I come to consider the second section. Is it probable that appraising officers will advance values above fifteen per cent, if they realize that such important con- sequences as forfeiture of the merchandise will follow! It will be ob- served that the first section does not require appraising officers to inquire into the intent with which the invoice was made and the entry w^as presented, but the proposed law infers a fraudulent intent from the finding by appraising officers of value greater by fifteen per cent, than the entered value. If this section shall become a law, may not merchan- dise be forfeited without anybody, or any tribunal, considering, or deciding, the question of guilty knowledge and criminal intention! It will not escape the attention of Congress that the first section of the proposed bill requires the Collector to levy and enforce the pay- ment of the regular duty, and the penal or additional duty prescribed therein. The third section enforces a forfeiture under the condi- tions herein prescribed, and requires a suit to be begun against the person having made the entry to recover the value of the merchan- dise if the same cannot be proceeded against “in remf but does the bill contemplate that the forfeiture shall be in addition to the regular duty and penal duty which may already have been paid! If the mer- chandise shall have passed out of the possession of the Government, and is seized, or, if the merchandise cannot be found and a suit be brought to forfeit the value, then of course both the regular and penal duty will have been paid thereon. If it be the intention of the law that, in case of forfeiture, the penal duty, and the regular duty, shall be returned to the person making the entry, there should be a provision in the law authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to draw his war- rant for the duties to be returned ! PRO FORMA INVOICES. In the volume of documents transmitted to Congress with my Annual Beport on “The Collection of Duties,” will be found (pp. 65, 591, 675) a reference to the manner in which Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the * 4 Anti- Moiety Law” of June 22d, 1874, have been used to defraud the revenue by the presentation of what have come to be called “pro forma in- voices.” From the enactment of that law up to October, 1878, an XXXII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. entry by pro forma invoice was treated, as to its liability to penal duty, as an entry made on the original invoice under Section 2900 of the Re- vised Statutes. During the last named year, an importation of dia- monds having been made in the port of New York unaccompanied by a certified invoice, the importer was permitted by the Collector, under the law of 1874, to present “a statement in the form of an invoice,” purporting to show the foreign value of the diamonds at 21,550 francs. They were appraised at 27,264.45 francs, and thereupon the additional duty of twenty per cent, was levied by the Collector under Section 2900 of the Revised Statutes. The importers insisted that this section did not apply, inasmuch as the statement, “in the form of an invoice,” which accompanied their entry, was not an “original invoice” within the meaning of Section 2900. The question was referred by this De- partment to the Attorney-General for advice, who, in an opinion dated October 4th, 1878, upheld the contention of the importers. He advised the Department that the law of 1874 initiated a mode of procedure entirely distinct from that described in Section 2900 of the Revised Statutes, inasmuch as the former contains no provision for an addition to the entry. He suggested that if the importer had presented the statement “in the form of an invoice,” with intent to defraud the revenue, the importer could be criminally punished and the diamonds forfeited, under the twelfth section of the Act of 1874. As a consequence, the number of pro forma invoices presented at the port of New York, during the year 1884, was nearly 30,000, of which more than 1, 7 00 covered merchandise valued at more than $100. When my attention was called to this condition of affairs I invited the Attorney - General to reconsider the opinion of his predecessor, Mr. Devens, but on August 27th, 1885, the Department of Justice sustained the previous opinion. According to the law, as it stood prior to 1884, only the Head of this Department could authorize an entry without the production of a certified invoice unless the value of the importation might be less than $100, in which case the Collector could admit it to entry without the production of the triplicate invoice and without submitting the question to the Secretary of the Treasury, if the Collector “is satisfied that the neglect to produce such invoice was unintentional, and that the importation was made in good faith, and without any purpose to defraud, or evade, the revenue laws.” But the law of 1874 gave to the Collector discretion in the execution of Sections 9, 10, and 11. The facts clearly show that the law of 1874 was inconsiderately and care- lessly administered. Such inefficiency at the several ports may now exist, but this Department is unable to sufficiently guard against it. My own opinion, when my attention was first called to the question, was, and it now is, that the twenty per cent, penalty is applicable to an entry made under the sections of the law of 1874 to which I have referred, and for the reason that the last-named law does not repeal the last clause in Section 2900 of the Revised Statutes, which declares that: “The duties shall not, however, be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value.” That declaration seems to me to be an independent requirement, not depending upon the pre- vious provisions of the section. Originally the law declared, as has been shown, that the duty shall not be assessed upon the amount less than the “invoice” value, but later on the law said that the duty shall not be assessed upon less than the “entered” value. The words “invoice” and “entered,” are not in that connection, as it seems to me, used as REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXXIII synonymous words. If tliey who prepared the Revised Statutes had taken Section 2900 literally from the Statute of 1865, which the Revised Statutes professed to re-enact, the question would have been more free from difficulty, inasmuch as the law of 1865 declares : “The duty shall not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value, any Act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.'’' 1 For all these reasons it has happened that the Government has neither collected twenty per cent, penal duty, nor prosecuted the importers or merchandise for fraudulent undervaluation. The evil can, however, be easily remedied by repealing the obnoxious sections in the law of 1874. REORGANIZATION OF THE APPRAISING DEPARTMENT. Second Section. — This section implies that dutiable value is to be ascer- tained by the appraising officers and not by the Collector. It does not apply to merchandise that has been purchased “in the ordinary course of business. 77 It applies to merchandise obtained by gift, or finding, as well as by manufacture. It applies to diamonds, and precious stones, if not obtained by purchase. The inquiries and decision are novel, which the appraising officers will, under it, be required to make in order to determine the value on which the rates of duty shall be levied by the Collector. It requires the appraising officers to ascertain and determine not only the cost of production of each article, not ob- tained “by actual purchase in the ordinary course of business, but the home value 77 in the principal markets of our own country. It makes either the former or the latter a minimum value. I deem it my duty most urgently to suggest the inquiry whether or not the appraising department of the Government at New York, or in any other of the collection districts, is equipped, or can be equipped, under the existing law, for making these two inquiries. Under the section the appraising officers must ascertain the cost of material, insurance, interest, commissions, superintendence, rents, the deprecia- tion of plant, and a reasonable profit for manufacture, in a business carried on in a foreign country, three, or four, or possibly five thousand, miles away. Not only are the local appraisers to ascertain these facts, but their decisions will, under the existing law, be subject to re-ex - ination on reappraisement, and again to re-examination by the Col- lector if the reappraisers shall disagree in regard to any of these occult Elements. I am aware that the tendency of recent legislation, and notably that in respect to gloves, in 1873, which is contained in section 2913 of the Revised Statutes, and also that contained in the ninth section of the tariff act of 1883, has been to require, or permit, appraising officers to ascertain market value by other tests than the price at which similar goods are bought or sold, or are held for sale, by the owner, or the price whi*ch he expects to re- ceive therefor, at his own place of business, after sale in the United States. The execution of both these enactments has given much em- barrassment to this Department. As an Appendix to this communica- tion (marked A) I transmit a copy of a Circular Letter issued by this Department on July 7th, 1883, immediately after the enactment of the tariff law of that year. I think the effect of requiring appraising offi- cers to determine market value by ascertaining the cost of production will result in a litigious controversy, in nearly every case, over such S. Ex. 72- ■iii XXXIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cost, and that the Appraising Department, as at present organized, is not adapted for such an inquiry. The second branch of the proposed new system, which requires the appraising officers to ascertain “the home value of imported mer- chandise in the principal markets of the United States,* 7 will be, as it seems to me, quite as difficult. Which Avill be the “principal markets of the United States 77 for merchandise imported into Alaska? Will not the market-places vary with the character of the merchandise? The Constitution ordains that u all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States. 77 But how can that constitu- tional requirement be obeyed if duties are to be levied on the “home value 77 as defined by the second section of the proposed law? Will it be possible that duties on similar merchandise entered at Eastport in Maine, at New York, New Orleans, San Francisco, Portland in Oregon, and Alaska, can be uniform. If the duty is finally determined by the Collector, how can the appraising officers in advance of his deter- mination conveniently deduct the amount of duties from the “home value 77 ascertained by them? If cost of production, or home value, is to determine dutiable value, ought not the importer to be permitted to declare his appreciation of one or the other in his invoice or entry ? Will not home value in the end be largely determined by foreign value? Shall silk goods, imported at St. Louis, pay fifty per centum upon their value at Boston, or at New York? In a word, does not the second re- quirement in the second section bring to the front the constitutional and other objections which apply to any and every ad valorem system based on home valuations? The present magnitude of appraising work at the port of New York is not, I fear, correctly and sufficiently appreciated, either by legislators, or by the public at large. It certainly was not appreciated by me until I came to be responsible, in some measure, for its proper per- formance. The tariff law of 1883 divides and classifies imported merchandise into fourteen schedules. The following tabular statement showing the value of the merchandise entered for consumption (including entries for immediate consumption and withdrawals from warehouse for con- sumption) at the port of New York, during the fiscal year ended June 30th, 1885, may assist Congress to realize the proportions of the Goy- ernment business transacted at that port. Schedule of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883. Values. • Regular Duty Collected. Free list Dollars. 121,362,360 Dollars. A Chemical products 9. 817, 589 3,023,115 05 4,069,394 53 B Earthenware &c 7,401. 146 c Metals p 20. 319. 671 7,276,200 14 D Wooden ware 1 . 019, 080 303, 146 36 36, 003, 879 76 4. 810. 313 65 E Suo'ar 49. 275, 608 6,366,161 16, 298, 027 Gr Provisions 4,667.275 14 jj Liquors 5,965,737 4,374,621 11 8,873.004 86 6,691,250 04 19,564,086 84 12,782,237 81 852, 468 55 9,256,209 15 188, 594 09 I Cottons 22,186,738 j Hemp and flax goods 24, 187, 052 Wool and wool Ions 30, 932, 763 L Silk and silk goods 25, 994, 740 Books 3, 382, 446 N Sundries 37, 669. 488 Non-cnumenited (Section 2513 Revised Statutes) 474,410 Total 382, 653, 016 122, 635, 797 08 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXXV The sum total of the schedules shows that merchandise of the value of $382*653,016 was received, examined, and delivered at the port of New York during the last fiscal year, and that $122,635,797 were actually levied and collected thereon. It is believed that no other government, no other port or metropolis, can exhibit, during that year, such an enormous volume of government business of a similar character as was transacted at the port of New York. It may be useful to add that, throughout the whole country and in all the collection districts, the relation of ad valorem to specific rates, in the full amount of duty collected during the fiscal year ended June 30th, 1885, was : Ad valorem $54, 337, 089 Ad valorem portion of the compound rate 14, 728, 481 $69, 065, 570 Or 38.9 per cent. Specific $95, 679, 370 Specific portion of the compound rate 12, 574, 610 $108, 253, 980 Or 61.1 per cent. If any importing house, or if any number of importing houses, had received, handled and sold such an enormous quantity of most valuable merchandise, of every variety of fabric and form, I think it can be safely said that the conveniences, facilities and machinery for the transaction of such business would not have been like those which this Government has used, and is using, at the port of Now York, as regards the building, or buildings, in which this vast quantity of merchandise has been examined and appraised, the conveniences of space, air, light and other arrangements tending to promote accuracy and prevent confusion, to say nothing of the number, qualification, character and compensation of the agents employed. The business of receiving, carting, examining, appraising, warehous- ing and delivering imported merchandise at the port of New York, is fairly divisible into three subdivisions. There are the buildings in which are the offices of the Collector, Naval Officer and Surveyor, wherein ’clerical work, and work of general administration, are con- ducted. There are the warehouses in which the merchandise is re- ceived and stored, with its complement of storekeepers, including the business of cartage. There is such work as is done out of doors, on the wharves, in weighing, gauging, measuring — which is under the super- vision of the Surveyor. And finally there is, at the port of New York, in buildings separate and apart from the premises just described — the appraisers’ stores, where all the vast and intricate work of ascertaining foreign values is carried on. These appraisers’ stores are not owned by the Government, but a rental is paid therefor. The whole cost of the appraising force at New York, including appraisers, examiners, openers, packers, clerks, messengers, laborers and cartage, during the last fiscal year, is exhibited in the accompanying document “Ex- hibit B.” I have in my Annual Report already alluded to this subject, and to the inadequate character of the force employed. The present Appraiser XXXVI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. at New York, who is at the head of this enormous appraising establish- ment, or rather at the head of the force appraising such an enormous quantity of merchandise, is, I believe, a competent, upright and coura- geous officer. He has experience, zeal and fidelity. His salary is four thousand dollars a year, and, small as it is, it is the largest paid to any of the appraising officers at that port. The work of administration, supervision, examination and actual appraisement, placed upon him by the statute, would be altogether beyond the power of any one man even if the working hours of a day were an hundred instead of eight or ten, and if he had the physical endurance therefor. He is responsible, in theory, for the examination and appraisement of each and every article under all the fourteen schedules. But good administration of such an ad valorem system as ours requires that there be over each of the sched- ules as competent an appraising officer, whose salary, if the work be courageously and conscientiously performed, cannot, I had almost said, be too large. And as no one man can, in person, examine and appraise each and all of the articles in each schedule, there is needed over eabh one of the schedules subordinate appraisers, and examiners, whose apti- tude and discrimination in the comparison of one fabric with another in order to ascertain foreign value, should command a much larger salary than is now paid to any member of our appraising force. It must be borne in mind that what an appraiser, under our system, is required to ascertain, is all the facts in regard to values, and to as- certain them as they exist not in one’s own city or locality, but in places removed by many thousand miles. The conclusions must neces- sarily be inferences from relevant facts. To perform that kind of work successfully, one may require facilities different from those required for successful buying and selling. If our present ad valorem system is to be continued, if there is not to be a large substitution of specific for ad valorem rates, our existing appraising system should be reformed and enlarged. Still more neces- sary will such reformation and enlargement be if the requirements of the second section of the proposed bill are to be successfully enforced. I fear that even so large reduction as by one-half of the existing ad valorem rates would not do away with the necessity for such reforma- tion and enlargement. I have shown what happened in 1817, 1840, and 1857 when ad valorem rates were not as high by one-half or two-tliirds as now. Whatever successful contrivances are in operation to-day to evade the reven ue by false invoices, or by undervaluations, or by any other means, under an ad valorem system, will not cease even if the ad valo- rem rates shall have been largely reduced. They are incontestably, they are even notoriously inherent in that system. And while no system, not even that of specific rates is free from its own especial difficulties, which in that case are rather difficulties of impact and of distribution than difficulties of administration, it is my plain duty to set before Con- gress the nature and full extent of those difficulties which environ the administration of such laws as now exist upon our statute-books, ac- companied by the ad valorem war rates of our present tariff and im- pinging upon 4,000 different articles. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXXVII DIFFICULTIES IN REAPPRAISEMENTS. But the difficulties do not end with what is called, in revenue law, the local appraisement, or the first appraisement. The importer can ask a reappraisement and one of those reappraisers must he a merchant familiar with the character, quantity and foreign value of the mer- chandise to he appraised. What my predecessor, Mr. Crawford, said in 1817, about merchant appraisers under that system, applies with equal force to the one merchant of the reappraising board under the present system. The General Appraiser at New York receives a salary of three thousand dollars, a mere pittance for one who is really com- petent for such work and such responsibility. Indeed the salary may almost be said to imply unfitness. There have been during many years, and are now, as I am informed, criticism and complaint of the manner in which reappraisements have been made and are conducted at New York. Here again such criticism and complaint are inseparable from the system. The reappraising board consists of only two members, — one of whom, the merchant appraiser, is selected by the Collector. His service is made compulsory by punitive provisions of law. His compensation for the service is trifling. The range and number of persons, even at the great port of New York, who come within the definition and quali- fications of the statute, are not large, because the merchant appraiser must be an expert in the particular article under appraisal. The ser- vice is of course not desired, and for the reason given by Mr. Crawford not far from three-quarters of a century ago, which was that the service brings the merchant into disagreeable relations with his associates, or rivals, who import, and deal in, a similar article. As the board of reappraisers consists of only two, there is often an inability to come to a decision, and then the whole question of foreign value goes to the Collector, who, although he may be competent as Collector, may not be, in all particulars, suitable for the decision of such a question. It is not easy to think of a tribunal more unsuitably organized to execute the provisions of the second section of the proposed bill than is a re- appraising board as at present constituted. There is another consideration connected with the organization and conduct of a reappraising board which will I am sure commend itself to the consideration of Congress. If the forms of law are pursued by appraising officers, and if there is no fraud on the part either of the importer or of the appraising officers, then there is no officer, or tribunal, executive or judicial, to revise the decision as to value. The decision of the Collector, as to classification, or rate, or amount of duty can be revised, and set aside, by the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Judicial Department of the Government. While the law has not made appraising officers to be judicial officers in a constitutional sense, it has required of them the exercise of very large and high faculties of discre- tion and judgment. The Supreme Court of the United States has, for that reason, on several occasions heretofore spoken of a reappraising officer as a “quasi judge, 7 ’ and “a legislative referee. 77 Many of these phrases, which imply that a reappraisement is a judicial proceed- ing, had their origin when the appraising law, differed widely and es- sentially from the present law, and when an appraisement partook more than now of the character of an arbitration. These, and similar expressions used by the Federal Judges, from time to time, consti- tuted almost the only basis of the contention that was addressed to me, XXXVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. during the last summer, to the effect that an importer had a right to be present at a reappraisement, to confront opposing witnesses by testimony in his own behalf, to sift, test and reduce by cross-examination testimony offered in opposition to the correctness of his invoice, and to have the aid of counsel. As I have explained in my Annual Report, I felt con- strained to resist this contention, and chiefly because it is impracticable for reappraisements to be carried on in the forms and manner of a law- suit. But, having decided that an importer is not entitled of right to be represented on a reappraisement by a lawyer, I stopped the practice which, to some extent, had prevailed by whiclt Special Agents of this Department appeared before the reappraising board in opposition to importers, and thus brought on a contentious litigation. The integrity of the appraising system, and justice to importers as well as the Gov- ernment, demand that the reappraising board shall be exempt from all undue outside influence, whether exerted by importers or manu- facturers, or this Department, when the question of foreign value is alone to be determined. One who is at the head of this Department cannot shut his eyes to the fact that a great deal of the contention over local appraisements, or reappraisements, grows out not merely of strife between rival importers, but between our own manufacturers, or their representatives, and for- eign manufacturers, or their representatives, who consign goods hither for sale on their account. A question has recently been presented to me by protest and appeal, whether or not a manufacturer in this country, not being an importer, is competent, within the law, to sit as a member of a reappraising board, the inference being that, because a manufact- urer of a similar article, he naturally had a selfish personal interest in the levy of the highest possible rate upon an imported article similar to his own. Considerations like these tend to illustrate the difficulties that may exist in the enforcement of the second section of the proposed bill. The tendency of my thoughts in respect to reappraisements at the port of New York is to advise appropriate and particular legisla- tion for that port. The appraising system is not now, and never has been, the same in .all the collection districts. In those wherein entries are few, and little duty is collected, the Collector, or Naval Officer, a*s the case may be, is an appraising officer. Even in the larger ports, like Boston, or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, where the business is very much less than at New York, the arrangements of the appraising force are different from those existing at the last-named port. It will be well, I think, to create a reappraising board at the port of New York to con- sist of three General Appraisers, competent for the important work, and with sufficient salaries. The board should consist of three instead of two, so as to prevent probability of disagreement as when the -board consists of only two. The decision of this board should be final, so as to relieve the Collector of the reappraising work which is now thrown upon him. I do not think that abandonment of the present plan of selecting a merchant to be a member of the reappraising board will work any injustice to importers or consumers, or to the Government. It will be within the discretion of Congress to make the tenure of office of the members of this board such as may be thought best. They can be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate,. as are Jus- tices of the Supreme Court, and Judges of all the other Federal Courts. Federal Judges sitting in Admiralty decide mixed questions of law and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XXXIX. fact without the intervention of a jury, and I see no reason why execu- tive officers may not, as reapp raisers, be intrusted with functions not more delicate, or important. Third Section . — This section is a modification of Section 2864 of the Bevised Statutes, and of a provision in the law of June 22d, 1874. It covers merchandise obtained by purchase, as well as that obtained otherwise than by purchase. It implies that an invoice of the former must have the same elements as those now required by law. But if the merchandise be obtained otherwise, then, by the proposed third section, the invoice of a manufacturer must contain, “the actual market value at the time of exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country from whence the same has been exported.” The present law declares that an invoice of merchandise sent hither by the manu- facturer must contain “ the actual market value thereof at the time, and place, when and where the same was procured or manufactured .” The change, it will be seen, is both as to the time and as to the place. I have already intimated the advantage in my opinion of changing the time required in such invoices. Fourth Section . — It is with some diffidence that I interpose any objec- tion to the fourth section, which proposes that one-half of the proceeds of fines, penalties or forfeitures shall be deposited in the Treasury sub- ject to the joint order of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secre- tary of State, who are authorized to distribute this fund in their dis- cretion “to meritorious officers of the customs or consular service who shall have been instrumental in the detection or punishment of frauds upon the revenue.” If this section should become a law there will I fear be a practical difficulty in a practical execution thereof at the distant ports by a tribunal sitting in Washington. No work could be more vexing for an executive officer than the distribution of such a fund. Any such law, if deemed necessary and enacted by Congress, should, as did the law of 1789, define exactly what portion of the pro- ceeds of a forfeiture shall be paid to a seizing officer, and what portion shall be paid to an informer, or to informers, by whose information the seizure was made and the forfeiture accomplished. Under the law of 1799, such questions were judicial questions determined by the Court when called upon to distribute the proceeds of the forfeiture paid into the registry of the Court. The facts, being local, should be judicially examined in the same place where they arose, and be disposed of, if need be, by contentious litigation. The Bill (S. B. No. 1153) proposes not only to revive the “Moiety System,” but to revive it in a most objectionable form. Fifth Section. — This fifth section in prescribing the rules for the burden of proof only refers to a suit, or information, u in rem ,” when a seizure is made. It makes no provision for a suit to recover the value of the merchandise when the property cannot be seized. Sixth Section.— There should be an exhaustive review of existing legis- lation, and a defining, describing, and identifying of the former laws which, in the opinion of Congress, will be inconsistent with the pro- posed Bill if it shall become a law. SPECIFIC AND AD VALOREM RATES. It will be apparent, I hope, from what has been said above, and in my Annual Beport, that I fully appreciate whatever superiorities, in an ideal system of custom-house taxation, low ad valorem rates may XL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. have over specific rates. So long as the disposition of Congress shall be to continue to levy high war duties upon some thousands of imported articles, rather than low duties upon a few, a general application of specific rates would be impossible without inflicting still further hard- ship and injustice upon the wage-receiving classes in the community, and those who are constrained to live on small incomes. Specific rates levied upon all imported articles, and especially on all articles of clothing, would for them be highly oppressive, unequal and unjust. A system of specific rates must be adjusted, and arranged, with regard to the values, and, therefore, when prices of imported articles are, as now, tend- ing downward, specific rates are obviously increasing without a textual change in the law. I have it also clearly in mind how vexing and unjust is a compound system, made up of ad valorem and specific rates on the same article,, and how still more vexing and unjust is a specific rate on a specified article, varying with foreign value, as is the present scale of rates on steel and wool. But we are confronted with the fact that the Treasury must annually obtain a sum hardly less than one hundred and fifty millions of dollars from imported merchandise, which is a sum less by some twenty millions than was received last year. It will be well-nigh impossible, in my opinion, for human wit to levy that amount of tax with- out inflicting hardship and injustice upon somebody, either importer or consumer, or on some vested interest, whether agricultural or manu- facturing. Especially is that true of taxes levied on our coasts, or on our frontier, upon arriving merchandise. The Government is now beset, on one side, with the comparative injustice and hardship upon individuals, and vested interests, inflicted by specific rates if levied on all articles, and, on the other side, by the impossibility of enforcing and collecting high ad valorem rates levied on foreign values without the use of coercive and penal laws quite unsuitable for a free govern- ment to put in operation, and which when put in operation are quite likely to demoralize alarmingly not only the officers who are called upon to execute the law, but the importers who are compelled to do business under it. One advantage, and perhaps the chief advantage, of a specific over an ad valorem system, is in the fact that, under the former, duties are levied by a positve test, which can be applied by our officers while the merchandise is in the possession of the Govern- ment, and according to a standard which is altogether national and domestic. That would be partially true of an ad valorem system levied upon u liome value, 7 ’ but there are constitutional impediments in the way of such a system which appear to be insuperable. But under an ad valorem system, the facts to which the ad valorem rate is to be applied must be gathered in places many thousand miles away, and under circumstances most unfavorable to the administration of justice. One hears it often said that if our ad valorem rates did not exceed twenty-five or thirty per cent, undervaluation and temptation to under- valuation would disappear, but the records of this Department for the years 1817, 1840,- and 1857, do not uphold that conclusion. Of course I am very far from advocating the universal application of specific rates, but I do believe it to be possible for the more experienced and conscientious of our appraising or examining officers in different parts of the country, and for the experts in this Department, to prepare a plan for the prudent enlargement of specific rates which will greatly pro- mote the welfare of the Government, and of the country, and, as a matter REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XLI of administration, not work injustice to any class in the community beyond the injustice inevitably entailed by any system that levies annually one hundred and fifty millions of dollars tax on imported merchandise of so many kinds, at war rates, and on a scheme other- wise so unscientific and disorderly. A complete system of rates of duty has not, in the last quarter of a century, as I am informed, been pre- pared by the official experts in our custom-houses, under the general advice and direction of this Department, and commended by the Sec- retary to Congress. I have caused a careful examination to be made of the tariff law of March, 1883, to ascertain the number of specifica- tions, ad valorem, specific, and mixed, contained in that enactment, and I present below the result : Schedule. Ad valo- rem. Specific. Mixed. A 144 118 7 B 60 17 1 c 99 235 D 30 16 E 1 7 F 1 3 G 32 78 H 1 29 I 32 £0 ' J 60 18 K 3 12 75 L 12 1 M 32 N 196 32 i Totals 703 590 86 CONSIGNED MERCHANDISE. The sending to New York of merchandise by foreign manufacturers and presenting it there for sale, or the taking in this country of orders, on samples, of merchandise to be delivered in New York at duty-paid prices arranged in our currency, is a growing fact which this Govern- ment must face in selecting and prescribing rates of duty. Just as manufacturers in other States of our own Union send their merchandise on consignment to their own agents to sell in New York, so do, and so will, European manufacturers. The ledgers of commerce and trade will, more and more, be written and kept, in that city, and laws of taxation, state or national, immediately probable, are not likely to greatly impede or change the current. As buyers in New York do not go to New England to buy her staple manufactures, but find all the ele- ments of buying in New York, so it will naturally be with European productions. If that is to be the case, I do not think our existing ad valorem rates can in the future be honestly, or satisfactorily, worked, under the existing conditions of our invoice law, our appraising law, and the force of consular and appraising officers that we now have. I fear that to begin reform with the enactment of new u Coercive Laws’ 7 will be to begin at the wrong end. Kespectfully yours, DANIEL MANNING, Secretary. To The President pro tempore of the Senate of the United States. APPENDIX. APPENDIX A. CIRCULAR. Application of Section 9, Act of March 3, 1883, to the Ascertainment of Foreign Market Values of Merchandise Imported into the United States. 1883. Department No. 93. Secretary’s Office. Treasury Department, Washington , D. ( 7 ., July 7, 1883. To Collectors of Customs and others : The Department has been informed through consular officers that manufacturers of merchandise abroad which is intended for imputa- tion into the United States, to be consigned to their agents in this country, may probably claim the right to enter such merchandise at cost price instead of its market value under Section 9 of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883. That section is as follows : “If upon the appraisal of imported goods, wares, and merchandise, it shall appear that the true and actual market value and wholesale price thereof, as provided by law, cannot be ascertained to the satis- faction of the appraiser, whether because such goods, wares, and mer- chandise be consigned for sale by the manufacturer abroad to his agent in the United States, or for any other reason, it shall then be lawful to appraise the same by ascertaining the cost or value of the materials composing such merchandise, at the time and place of manufacture, together with the expense of manufacturing, preparing, and putting up such merchandise for shipment, and in no case shall the value of such goods, wares, and merchandise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascertained.” Section 2854, Revised Statutes, requires that all invoices of imported merchandise — “shall, at or before the shipment of the merchandise, be produced to the consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent of the United States nearest the place of shipment, for the use of the United States, and shall have indorsed thereon, when so produced, a declaration signed by the pur- chaser, manufacturer, owner, or agent, setting forth that the invoice is in all respects true ; that it contains, if the merchandise mentioned therein is subject to ad valorem duty, and was obtained by purchase, a true and full statement of the time when and the place where the same was purchased, and the actual cost thereof, and of all charges thereon ; and that no discounts, bounties, or drawbacks are contained in the invoice but such as have actually been allowed thereon ; and when obtained in any other manner than by purchase, the actual mar- ket value thereof at the time and place when and where the same was procured or manufactured.” XLIV REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Section 2845, Revised Statutes, provides that — “no merchandise subject to ad valorem duty belonging to a person not residing at the time in the United States, who has not acquired the same in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, or belonging to the manufacturer, in whole or in part, of the same, shall be admitted to entry, unless the invoice thereof is verified by the oath of the owner, or of one of the owners, administered and authenticated in the mode pre- scribed in the two preceding sections, and certifying that the invoice contains a true and faithful account of the merchandise, at its fair market value, at the time and place when and where the same was pro- cured or manufactured. 7 7 Section 2902, Revised Statutes, is as follows : “It shall be the duty of the appraisers of the United States, and every of them, and every person who shall act as such appraiser, or of the collector and naval officer, as the case may be, by all reasonable ways and means in his or their power, to ascertain, estimate, and appraise the true and actual market value and wholesale price, any invoice or affidavit thereto to the contrary notwithstanding, of the merchandise, at the time of exportation, and in the principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported into the United States, and the number of such yards, parcels, or quantities, and such actual market value or wholesale price of every of them, as the case may require.’ 7 Neither of these provisions is repealed, but they all remain in full force. The Department regards Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1883, as in nowise changing or modifying the requirements of the Revised Statutes as to the duty of manufacturers, owners, or agents in making their declarations to invoices, under Section 2854, Revised Statutes, or as to the verification by the oath of the owner, under Section 2845. Both sections require a statement that the invoice contains a true and faithful account of the merchandise, at its fair market value, at the time and place when and where the same was procured or manufactured. The oath for the cases under consideration prescribed in the Tariff Act of 1883, is as follows : “I, , do solemnly and truly swear (or affirm) that the entry now delivered by me to the collector of contains a just and true account of goods, wares, and merchandise imported by or con- signed to me in the , whereof is master, from ; that the said goods, wares, and merchandise were not actually bought by me, or by my agent, in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, but that, nevertheless, the invoice which I now produce contains a just and faithful valuation of the same, at their fair market value, at the time or times and place or places when and where procured for my account (or for account of myself or partners) ; that the said invoice contains also a just and faithful account of all the cost for finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to their present condition, and no other discount, drawback or bounty but such as lias been actually allowed on the said goods, wares, and merchandise ; that the said invoice and the declaration thereon are in all respects true, and were made by the person by whom the same purports to have been made ; that I do not know nor believe in the existence of any invoice or bill of lading other than those now produced by me, and that they are in the state in which I actually received them. And I do further solemnly and truly swear REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XLV (or affirm) that I have not in the said entry or invoice concealed or suppressed anything whereby the United States may be defrauded of any part of the duty lawfully due on the said goods, wares, and merchan- dise, and that if at any time hereafter I discover any error in the said invoice, or in the account now produced of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, or receive any other invoice of the same, I will immedi- ately make the same known to the collector of this district.’’ By reference to decisions of the courts it appears that the provisions of section 9 of the act of 1883 are a recognition of a principle already applied to the method which appraisers may adopt in extraordinary cases to ascertain what is the market value. In the case of Cliquot’s Champagne, (3 Wallace, U. S. Rep., 125,) the court charged the jury as follows : “ The market value of goods is the price at which the owner of the goods or the producer holds them for sale ; the price at which they are freely offered in the market to all the world ; such prices as dealers in the goods are willing to receive, and purchasers are made to pay when the goods are bought and sold in the ordinary course of trade. You will perceive, therefore, that the actual cost of the goods is not the standard. On the contrary, that having been the standard, the law has been changed, and for the standard of the cost has been substituted another standard, to wit, the actual market value. ’ ’ In “Six Cases of Silk Ribbons,” (3 Benedict, C. C. Reports, 536,) which was a prosecution for the forfeiture of the goods for false valua- tion, the court charged the jury as follows : i L The law presumes that there was, at the time and place of the man- ufacture of the goods seized, an actual market value thereof; and no evidence can be received or considered, under the law and under the oaths to the invoices, to show there was not, in fact, such actual market value thereof. The cost of the goods will come under consideration, if at all, not as a substitute for market value, but merely as an item of evidence on the question as to what was the actual market value. There- fore, you must assume in this case that there was an actual market value for these goods at the time and place of their manufacture, the only question being to ascertain what such actual market value was. The claimants had no right to adopt any other standard of value than snch actual market value, nor do I understand them as claiming that they had such right. They have sworn in the oath on each invoice that such invoice contains the actual market value ; and their claim is, not that they had a right to set forth anything except the actual market value, but that the actual market value was the cost, with the manu- facturer’s profit added, at the percentage named in the testimony, and that such actual market value was no greater according to their idea of actual market value. So, also, the claimants were required to state in their invoices the actual market value of their goods at the time and place of their manufacture, not only without regard to the cost thereof, but without regard to the profit or loss which might result from their consignment thereof, or any loss which may be shown in the end to have resulted therefrom. If they chose to take the cost and add a profit, and make up the actual market value in that way, and it turns out in the end that that is the actual market value, very well ; but if it turns out in the end that that is less than the actual market value, the claim- XLVI REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ants cannot maintain under the law that they had a right to put in place of the actual market value the cost with the manufacturer’s profit added. Nor is the manufacturer relieved or excused from stating in his invoice such actual market value, or justified in adopting any other standard of value, because he may not himself make sales at home of similar goods, but may consign all such goods for sale to foreign markets. Although he may adopt such course of trade, he is, nevertheless, re- quired to state in his invoice the actual market value of such goods at the time and place of their completed manufacture ; that is, the price he holds such goods for sale at such time and place, the price at which he then and there freely offers them in the market, such price as he is then and there willing to receive for them, if they are sold in the ordi- nary course of trade.” The Secretary of the Treasury discusses the method of ascertaining the market value as follows, (Synopsis, 3222 :) 1 1 Where no sales are made in the country of production, either for consumption or export, the market value of similar goods of other man- ufacturers actually sold should be ascertained and be taken into account. In cases where the manufacturer ships all his goods to the United States on consignment for sale, and the market value cannot be ascertained by the methods before indicated, it should be fixed by reference to the market value of the component materials of the goods at the time and place of manufacture, with the expense of manufacture and a fair man- ufacturer’s profit added ; and the appraised value in such cases cannot be less than the cost and profit so ascertained. “It is to be understood that evidence of the cost of production of im- ported goods is in all cases to be regarded as a proper subject for con- sideration in determining dutiable values, and appraisers are allowed, under the law, the greatest latitude in procuring information as to what is the true market value of imported merchandise ; but it will be borne in mind that duties can in no case be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value, nor can the appraisement be made at less than that value.” The Department holds that all the old methods of ascertaining the actual market value are still open to the appraiser, and that it is still his duty, by every means in his power, to “ascertain, estimate, and appraise the true and actual market value and wholesale price” of mer- chandise, “any invoice or affidavit thereto to the contrary notwith- standing,” and that the provisions of Section 9 only authorize him, when such value cannot be ascertained to his satisfaction otherwise, to appaaise the same by ascertaining the cost or value of the materials as prescribed in that section. The language of the provision is not imperative, it is merely per- missive — “it shall then be lawful to appraise the same by ascertaining the cost or value of the materials,” &c. No manufacturer, shipper, owner, or other party has the right to invoice goods procured otherwise than by purchase at any other than the true market value, and in no case is the appraiser required to adopt any but the ordinary method of ascertaining market value. When he does adopt this method of appraisal, the law expressly re- quires that “in no case shall the value of such goods, wares, and mer- chandise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascer- tained.” REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XLVII Although by section 7 of the tariff act of 1883 all the provisions of law for adding charges to the value of merchandise to make dutiable value are repealed, yet section 9 of the same act provides that when appraisers resort to the method of appraisal described in that section, they are required to add to the cost or value of the maierials composing such merchandise at the time and place of manufacture “the expense of manufacturing, preparing, and putting up such merchandise for ship- ment.” The expense of preparing and putting up merchandise for shipment has always been regarded as among the charges, and the De- partment holds that, notwithstanding the general repeal of all provis- ions for charges contained in section 7, the charges for preparing and putting up merchandise for shipment must still be added to make duti- able value whenever the Appraiser makes his appraisal under section 9. It may further be observed that the method of appraisal contained in Section 9 might, if adopted in some cases, inflict great hardship upon exporters of merchandise. It has sometimes happened that the market value of merchandise, notably silks, by reason of an over-supply, has been less than the actual cost of production. To appraise such mer- chandise at the cost or value of the material composing it at the time and place of manufacture, with the expense of manufacturing, prepar- ing, and putting up such merchandise for shipment, might fix its value far above the actual market value and wholesale price at the date of exportation, while in another condition of the market the actual market value and wholesale price might be greater than the cost of production with the expense of preparing and putting up the merchandise for shipment. 1 Appraising officers and parties interested in the importation of mer- chandise will therefore bear in mind that not only does the law require the true and actual market value of the merchandise to be certified upon the invoice and stated in the entry, but that- this is a far more just and equitable method of appraisal than that described in Section 9, and that the method adopted in Section 9 should not be resorted to except in cases where the true and actual market value and wholesale price cannot otherwise be ascertained to the satisfaction of the ap- praiser, a condition which can but rarely occur. When the appraiser is compelled to resort to this mode of appraisal, there is nothing in the statute to prevent his adding to the items therein enumerated whatever he deems proper to make the true and actual market value, the only restriction upon his action being that “in no case shall the value of such goods, wares, and merchandise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascertained. ? ? H. F. FRENCH, Acting Secretary. XLVIII REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. APPENDIX B. Statement of the number and designation of officers and employes shown on the records of the Department as being now employed in the appraiser's office at the port of New York, to- gether with the aggregate annual cost of paying their present salaries. Number. Designation. Salary. l Totals. Per annum. Per diem. 1 $3 000 $3 000 00 1 f non 4 000 00 10 3,000 1 30* 000 00 12 37,000 00 Class 4. 1 2,500 $2 500 00 1 2,500 2*500 00 1 2,500 2,500 00 18 2 500 45*000 00 1 2,300 2 , 300 00 8 2,200 17*600 00 7 Do 2,000 14*000 00 34 Do 1,800 1 61,200 00 1 2,000 2,000 00 1 2,000 2,000 00 1 1,800 1,800 00 3 1,800 5,400 00 1 1,800 1,800 00 78 : 160, 600 00 Class 3. 4 Examiners each 1,600 $6,400 00 1 Openers and packers, superintendent of 1,600 1,600 00 6 Clerks each 1,600 9.600 00 11 17,600 00 Class 2. 10 Clerks a net verifiers 1,400 $14,000 00 Class 1. 4 Examiners each 1,200 $4,800 00 1 Clerk ..’ 1,200 1,200 00 1 Clerk and verifier 1,300 1,300 00 15 Clerks and verifiers, each 1,200 18,000 00 30 Samplers each 1,200 36,000 00 51 61,300 00 Class A. 1 Clerk 1,150 $1, 150 00 1 Clerk and verifier 1, 150 1,150 00 2 Samplers each 1,150 2,300 00 1 Opener and packer in charge : $3 75 1, 173 25 5 Foremen of openers and packers, each ’ 3 75 5, 868 75 1 Messenger ^ 3 75 1,173 25 72 Openers and packers, each 3 00 67, 608 00 83 80, 424 25 Unclassed. 3 Clerks each 864 $2,592 00 35 Messengers, each 840 29,400 00 55 Openers and packers, each 2 75 47,341 25 93 79, 333 95 338 Grand total 1 $450, 257 50 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. XLIX Disbursements by the collector and disbursing agent at New York , N. Y . , under head of “ appraisements ” or appraiser 1 s department, during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1885. Salaries to general appraiser, appraiser, assistant appraisers, examiners, verifiers, samplers, clerks, messengers, &c Salaries oj* compensation to openers and packers Compensation to laborers Rent of buildings $66, 220 00 Rent of telephone and telegraph 1 , 393 35 New freight-elevator 4, 432 ■ 00 Construction of additional story 4, 304 00 New York Transfer Company, cartage of dutiable merchan- dise 26, 373 72 Contingent : Gas, water-rents, ice, postage, subscriptions, hauling of sugar samples, hire of coupe, twine, trucks, nails, coal, sprinkling streets, furniture, repairs to heating apparatus and building, &c $323,751 18 120, 140 50 67, 128 50 102,723 07 47,471 10 Total, 661, 214 35 Recapitulation. Contingent $47, 47 1 10 Rent 66,220 00 Telephones and elevators .., 5, 825 35 Additional story to building 4, 304 00 Cartage contract 26, 373 72 Salaries and compensation 511,020 18 Total 661,214 35 Treasury Department, Office of the Supervising Architect , January 26, 1886. Memoranda. Premises rented in New York City for appraisement and storage of goods in connection with the customs service. Premises. Use. Period. Amount. Square between West Laight, Hu- bert, and Washington streets Appraisers’ store 3 years from May 1, 1883 Ann'l rent. $64, 500 00 Exchange place and Beaver street. Additional room Naval office do 10,000 00 LI months from June 1, 1885. 1 year from July 1, 1885 i 1,800 00 1,000 00 400 00 365 West street Weighers’ office 118 South street .........do Wall street stores, Brooklyn do do 300 00 12 Hamilton avenue do do 200 00 Havemeyer’s Bonded Warehouse. 86 West street do do 180 00 Gangers’ office do 600 00 40 Burling slip do 540 00 3 Atlantic street, Brooklyn do 300 00 250 West street Chemical laboratory. 3 vears from May 1, 1883 79,820 00 1,600 00 ! 81, 420 00 S. Ex. 72- IV CORRESPONDENCE. In July last the Department sent out to merchants and manufacturers, respectively, copies of the appended circular letters. About 1,000 copies of each circular were so issued, and the attention of many mer- chants and manufacturers to whom the circulars were not sent was called to them by their publication in the daily press. The total number of replies received from all sources was 1,269, of which number 767 were in the form of a circular letter from manufact- urers approving the reply of the National Association of Wool Manu- facturers to the Department Circular. Of the 500 replies made directly to the Department, all but 71 appear in this volume. As to these last, their failure to appear in the volume is due either to the refusal of the writers to allow their publication, to their neglect to authorize such publication, or to the fact that the letters did not contain information that was deemed of sufficient importance to justify their publication. (Circular to Merchants.) Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington , D. ( 7 ., , 1885. Investigations of the methods of entry and appraisement of imported merchandise have shown that the tariff laws are largely evaded by un- dervaluation wherever the duties are levied ad valorem. A remedy suggested for this evil is the adoption of specific duties. With a view of obtaining information on this subject, which may be useful to Congress, in fiscal legislation, and serve as an aid in the im- provement of the customs-revenue system, it is deemed proper to ask the advice of merchants whose business may be affected by tariff legis- lation, and whose just interests, as well as those of the Government, are dependent upon an honest and efficient administration of the tariff laws. You are therefore requested to give your views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff, and making the duties specific upon imported merchandise with which you are familiar, now subject to ad valorem rates, or to which the ad valorem principle is applied, together with such suggestions as you may be pleased to make towards the removal of incongruities, so that the administration of the revenue laws may be rendered more effective and uniform. It is suggested that your reply may be accompanied by a schedule showing the rates of specific duty which, in your opinion, should be levied upon the various kinds and qualities of merchandise named in such schedule, and also the specific rates which, according to your best information, would be equivalent to the present ad valorem rates. Information is also desired as to what extent, and with respect to what classes of merchandise, your firm has suffered injury on account of evasions of the tariff, and how, in your judgment, such evasions may be prevented — whether by specific duties or otherwise. Your reply will be treated as confidential, if so desired. Very respectfully, DAYIEL MAYYIYG, Secretary. (Circular to Manufacturers.) Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington , D. ( 7 ., , 1885. Investigations of the methods of entry and apx^raisement of imported merchandise have shown that the tariff laws are largely evaded by undervaluation wherever the duties are levied ad valorem. A remedy suggested for this evil is the adoption of specific duties. LI V REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. With a view of obtaining information on this subject, which may be useful to Congress, in fiscal legislation, and as an aid in the improve- ment of the customs-revenue system, it is deemed proper to ask the .advice of those directly interested in the various industrial arts of the country which may be affected b^ tariff legislation, and which suffer more or less by reason of defective methods of administration. You are therefore requested to give your views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff, and making the duty specific, so far as appli- cable to imported articles, such as are made or produced in the United States, in which you are interested, or with which yon are familiar, with as full information on the subject as you may be pleased to submit. It is desirable that, in addition to a schedule showing the rates of specific duty which in your opinion should be levied upon the various kinds and qualities of merchandise embraced therein, the information furnished may cover the following points : 1. Commercial or technical designation of the article, with sample or samples. 2. Cost of production of a given unit of quantity, by weight or meas- ure, with the following details as to each kind or quality of article, viz : (a) Cost of materials, character of same, (as for example, if wool, the kind of wool ,*) whether of foreign or domestic origin. If foreign, what part of the value represents duties paid thereon. ( b ) Cost of labor in detail, giving each article specifically, and the rates of wages paid. (c) Operating expenses, and how distributed. ( d ) Interest. (e) Other elements of cost not covered by the above. 3. Description of buildings and machinery, and amount of capital im^ested in each. 4. If the foreign article of similar kind and quality is subject to ad valorem duty, state as nearly as practicable the specific equivalent per a given unit of weight or measure. 5. Mention any exceptional element of advantage or disadvantage in manufacturing, such as location of the factory with reference to market, or means of transportation, accessibility of supplies, nature of the power or kind of machinery used, character of labor employed, rates of wages paid, amount of taxes, or exemption from taxation, &c. You are also requested to forward such information as you may be able to submit showing the relative cost of manufacture of the same article in the United States and in Europe, particularly with regard to the cost of labor, as affected by the rate of wages paid in the different countries. State how much the total cost of a given unit of production is increased in the United States over European countries by reason of the difference in wages paid, and the rate of interest on capital em- ployed. State also to what extent, within your knowledge, of the special trade with which your business is connected, the present laws imposing taxes on the imported article have been evaded, and how the same can be corrected, whether by specific duties or otherwise, and to what extent the home industry with which you are connected lias suffered from this cause. It is not intended that your reply shall be confined to the form or scope of the inquiries above suggested, but you are invited to give the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. LV fullest expression of your views on the general subject indicated, in such manner and form as you may deem best. Publicity will not be given to names, location, or facts relating to the business of individuals or corporations. These will be treated as private, if so desired. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Very respectfully, DANIEL MANNING, Secretary. [Belding Bros. & Co., silk manufactures.'] New York, July 31 , 1885 . Mr. Secretary: Dear Sir : Your welcome circular of the 18th has been received, and we hasten to reply, because we are among the victims who have suf- fered so long and go severely from undervaluation. This effort of yours to enforce and maintain the honest revenue of the country is highly commended by all, for there were those who thought that the corruptions of the custom house would endure forever. But you have grasped the subject with a steady hand and a determined purpose that entitles you to the earnest support of all who are directly affected by it. Yours, respectfully, BELDING BROS. & CO. Per H. D. BURKETT. Paragraph 1. — “Commercial or technical designation of the article with sample or samples.” Domestic designation: Cotton-hack satin. Foreign designation : Satin tram6-coton. Sample attached. (Description:) Cotton-hack satin ; color, seal; width, 27 inches ; quality, 249 ; warp threads, 9,500 : picks, per inch, 100 ; pure dye ; cotton No. 50, 2- ply. Paragraph 2. — “ Cost of production of a given unit of quantity, hy weight or measure, with the following details as to each kind or quality of article, namely : Given unit of measure, 120 yards. “ Cost of material, character of same, whether foreign or domestic origin ; if for- eign, what part of the value represents duties paid thereon.” Cost of material: Silk, $44; cotton, $9.90. Character of materials : Silk, best Italian; combed peeler, domestic cotton. “Cost of labor in detail, giving each item specifically and the rates of wages paid.” Material : Raw silk, best Italian, 8 pounds, at $5.50 $44 00 Cotton, combed peeler, domestic, 50.2, 18 pounds, at 55 cents 9 90 53 90 2 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Labor : Throwing raw silk, 8 pounds, at $1.15 $9 20 Dyeing raw silk, 8 pounds, at 50 cents 4 00 Winding dyed silk, pounds, at 30 cents - 1 95 Warping dyed silk, pounds, at 90 cents 5 85 Winding cotton, 18 pounds, at 10 cents 1 80 Dyeing cotton, 18 pounds, at 15 cents 2 70 Weaving 120 yards of cloth, at 16 cents 19 20 Finishing 120 yards of cloth, at 4 cents. 4 80 $49 50 103 40 Average loss in working material, 10 per cent 5 39 Average mill expenses, including rent, supplies, insurance, depreciation, &c., D.er yard, 14 cents 16 80 Cost of 120 yards 125 59 Cost of 1 yard 1 05 Winding — Where help is hired by the day, as is done in many of the large mills, the usual wages paid is about $5 a week — occasionally $6, but seldom. Warping is mostly done in large mills with the power machine, known as the Swiss warper. The warpers get about $7 a week. Weaving . — As weavers are seldom employed by the day or week, but are paid by the yard, according to the nature of the goods woven, the prices are not easily made definite, but the weekly average of power-loom weavers is for males about $9, and for females about $7.50, and of hand-loom weavers from $12 to 14. “ Other elements of cost not covered by the above.” There are ijrobably some other elements of cost which can only be reckoned by large manufacturers in a general way. Paragraph 3. — “Description of buildings and machinery and amount of capital invested in each.” The mills are furnished with the most approved machinery of the best makers and of the latest construction, having every improvement known to the silk industry. Our authorized capital is $600,000, all paid in. Paragraph 4. — “If the foreign article of similar kind and quality is subject to ad valorem duty, state as nearly as practicable the specific equivalent for a given unit of weight or measure.” Exhibit A, for quality 249. [The given unit of weight is 26 pounds ; of measure is 120 yards.] Home cost. Foreign cost. $49 50 9 90 Labor (one-half) ...£,. $24 75 4 95 44 00 10 03 Cotton (one-half) .... ............... 44 00 22 19 Silk (same) Other expenses Ad valorem duty, 50 per cent 83 73 41 86 125 59 ■ 125 59 Equivalent specific duty, 26 pounds, at $1.61 $41 86 Exhibit B, for quality 235. [The given unit of weight is 27 pounds 10 ounces; of measure is 120 yards.] Home cost. Foreign cost. $57 36 9 90 52 94 23 08 j Labor (one-half) $28 68 4 95 52 94 8 95 Cotton (one-half) Silk (same) ...... | Other expenses Ad valorem dutv, 50 per cent 143 28 95 52 47 76 1 143 28 Equivalent speciflo duty, 27 pounds 10 ounces, at $1.73 $47 76 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 3 Quality 235. Material : Raw silk, best Italian, 9 pounds 10 ounces, at $5.50 $52 94 Cotton, combed peeler, domestic, 50-2, 18 pounds, at 55 cents 9 90 62 84 Labor : Throwing raw silk, 9 pounds 10 ounces, at $1.15 11 07 Dyeing raw silk, 9 pounds 10 ounces, at 50 cents 4 81 Winding dyed silk, 7 pounds 13 ounces, at 30 cents 2 34 Warping dyed silk, 7 pounds 13 ounces, at 90 cents 7 04 Winding cotton, 18 pounds, at 10 cents «... 1 80 Dyeing cotton, 18 pounds, at 15 cents 2 70 Weaving 120 yards cloth, at 19 cents 22 80 Finishing 120 yards cloth, at 4 cents 4 80 57 36 Average loss in working material, 10 per cent 6 28 AA^erage mill expenses 120 yards, at 14 cents 16 80 Total cost 120 yards 143 28 Total cost 1 yard, $1.19. Sample attached (description) : Cotton-backed satin. Color, seal. Width, 27 inches. Quality, 235. Warp threads, 11,400. Picks, per inch, 100. Pure dye. Cotton No. 50, 2-ply. Paragraph 5. — u Mention any exceptional element of advantage or disadvantage in manufacturing, such as location of factory with refer- ence to market or means of transportation, accessibility of supplies, nature of the power or kind of machinery used, character of labor em- ployed, rates of wages paid, amount of taxes or exemption from taxa- tion,” &c. We have no exceptional element of advantage or disadvantage in manufacturing. The locality is good and healthy. The transportation by rail is good and sufficient. Supplies are easily accessible. The ma- chinery is new and the power is steam, with Corliss engines of 200 horse- power. The character of labor is represented by several nationalities — French, German, Swiss, Italians, and English — and wages are about uniform with those of Paterson, NT. J. Note. — The samples mentioned above will be separately transmitted to Congress. [John Ryle, silks .] Paterson, NT. J., August 15, 1885. Sir: The opening paragraph of your circular letter asserts “Inves- tigations of the methods of entry and appraisement of imported mer- chandise have shown that the tariff laws are largely evaded by under- valuation wherever the duties are levied ad valorem.” In confirmation of this statement a manufacturer’s opinion of the cause of the wide-spread system of undervaluation of imported goods may have weight, and I say unhesitatingly it is the ad valorem mode of assessment, with its high rates, and the remedy is surely a specific duty, but a specific rate of duty is not the whole cure; only mixed du- ties will cover the case. There can never be any serious danger of undervaluation if a system of mixed duties is adopted by the Government, with the ad valorem portion at so low a rate as 20 per cent, and the specific one by weight ; then the result will be a simply form of duty, easily ascertained and readily collected, 4 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. In the history and experience of commercial or tariff legislation under a high rate of ad valorem duty it has never been in the power of gov- ernments to relieve themselves from undervaluation by any safeguard which could be devised, for the reason that the origin of this evasion of the law is just here : the law itself is not founded upon a principle which can be maintained in its integrity so soon as the duty imposed becomes in its evasion ofisufficient profit to tempt either the avarice or cupidity of merchants or importers. High rates of duty must needs be specific, or the Government must submit to a system of evasions and undervaluations under ad valorem rates. The two conditions are insep- arable. Congress, in framing laws for the imposition of duties on silk manu- factures, has always imposed ad valorem rates, while experience has proved that for a material which in its nature is susceptible of being manufactured into so great variety of cloth, the value of each so de- pendent upon other causes than its intrinsic worth, or its proportionate value to the worth of the raw material, that there is no form of words which can be put together in formulating an ad valorem tariff which will not cause evasion to a great extent of the duties imposed, and be in its collection a fruitful source of undervaluation. And one noticeable point — this evasion has always been in proportion to the rate of duty. Hence we have seen in the past a continuous struggle on the part of Government to collect the duties imposed, and ceaseless attempts by the parties interested to evade. When the ad valorem dutyfis so low it will not pay to rob the Treasury Department, then the frauds upon the Government will cease perforce. No one will question the fact that the greater portion of the under- valuations and evasions of the law have been practiced under the sched- ule imposing duties on silks. Perhaps in the whole range of imports the silk manufactures have been the fruitful cause of more expensive and irritating litigation, more disputes between the officers of customs and merchants, than any other class of imports in the whole range of dutiable articles that legislation has attempted to control by acts of Congress since the foundation of the Government ; and this has been caused largely by the nature, form, and extent of the law imposing the duty, its nature being ad valorem, its form being appraisement based on the foreign invoiced price, and the extent being the high rate im- posed. The beginning of the system of undervaluation dates from the time of the passage of high tariff rates in 1 862 , when all duties were paid in gold. At that time the duties on silks were fixed at sixty per cent, ad valorem. This rate was the incentive to every conceivable evasion, and the premium on gold only added force to the temptation, and goes far to prove that the prolific source of all the evils experienced now arise from the high rate of duty and the ad valorem mode of assessment; and yet it is due the original framers of the tariff laws to acknowledge they were wise and patriotic in their efforts to secure to our Government the largest amount of revenue that would insure the greatest financial aid, at a time when sorely needed, and they took the best means known at that time to enable the customs authority to collect it. When one considers the variety of silk cloth produced, the various textures and widths, with the great difference in the values, and they dependent upon fluctuating circumstances, it would seem perhaps to a casual observer that the ad valorem rates were surely best calculated to meet every want, and that when one yard is worth four dollars and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 5 another thirty cents, such elasticity of value could only be properly met by ad valorem duties; and yet the practical result and experience has only proved the complete fallacy of this method. Surely no other form of duty could have resulted in more litigation or caused stronger antagonism between the importers and the Government officials, for rhis generic term “silk” covers dress silks, satins, crepes, and velvets, also handkerchiefs, shawls, ribbons, hat-bands, hats, dress-trimmings, veilings, in fact silks of every grade, and also includes all articles made of silk, or of which silk is the component part of chief value. By the present tariff a duty of 50 per cent, ad valorem is levied on silk cloths of foreign manufacture. Now the law provides that when, for any reason whatever, the true and actual market value, &c., cannot be ascertained to the satisfaction of the appraiser, the basis for assessment for the duties to be paid shall be that which rules in a foreign market, namely, by u ascertaining the cost or value of the materials composing such merchandise at the time and place of manufacture, together with the expense of manufacturing, preparing, and putting up such merchandise for shipment, and in no case shall the value of such goods, wares, and merchandise be appraised at less than the total cost or value thus ascertained.” So reads section 9 of the new tariff' of March 3, 1883, and applies to a large class of merchandise consigned to agents in the United States by manufacturers in foreign countries, and for which there is no foreign market, for the reason such goods are specially manufactured for sale in the United States only; thus making the amount of duty upon such goods depend upon prices in the country of production instead of a home valuation. In the history of commercial legislation there are few in- stances recorded in which such law has prevailed. A Government possessing, as our does, the power to enforce its laws, as a matter of justice to its own citizens should insist that the valua- tion of imports upon which its revenue is paid be that ruling within its own territory, and the power to regulate such valuation should always be kept within its own control. No living man can possibly ascertain the value of silk goods. It is a very serious and very important matter to decide between cost and value. These terms do not always bear a strong relation to each other. Cost and value are seldom synonymous. Yet the Government compels a person to swear to the cost or value, something it is not in the power of man to ascertain. Cost is one thing, value another. Men of the highest possible intelligence are set at this work — this impossibility — and thus a bone of contention becomes a basis for calculating duties, and causes endless lighting to establish something impossible to do. No language can be framed to express this value, for the reason that this manufacture does not depend for its value upon any certain condi- tions attending its production, such, for example, as the market value of the raw material, the quantity of labor required, &c. No condition of this character has any controlling influence in creating for silk prod- ucts a market value which can be established beyond all dispute, like cotton or wool manufactures. Silk goods of any description may have cost a high price to produce ; they may be manufactured from the highest cost of raw material and by the most skilled labor, and yet, from the mere incident of colors, styles, and patterns, they may be appraised at a value much less than the cost of production ; while, on the other hand, silks inferior in qual- ity, of raw material, of less cost, and perhaps of less labor, but of fash- 6 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ionable colors and desirable patterns, may yield a profit to tbe importer or manufacturer after paying a heavy duty. Just at this point, as an important factor, there enters the question of the amount of value added to silk goods high in public favor, and how much depreciation is caused when the same goods are made of combinations and contrasts entirely undesirable. It is true the only matters prescribed in an appraisement of value are “the cost or value of the material composing the merchandise at the time and place of manufacture, together with the expense of manufacturing, preparing, and putting up the merchandise for shipment, and the value so ascer- tained is made a basis for the assessment of duties.” But does this form the whole of the considerations'? No ; much of the value depends on the style and colors of the goods, and these are beyond the power of legislation to measure or the intelligence of Congress to frame laws to properly estimate the value, for the purpose of assessing ad valorem duties. Legislation for the imposition of duties should be uniform in applica- tion and equally and justly imposed on all alike. Certainly this requires the largest experience and the widest range of knowledge to provide for such contingencies as are of every-day occurrence in the business of importing silk goods for the supply of a nation. All former tariffs have had their basis if not been entirely framed, on the principle of ad valorem rates. Since these have been productive of ceaseless strife and irritating litigation, as a logical conclusion we may take it for granted that by a change in our mode of assessment to a mixed system of duties we shall avoid many of our present troubles, the Government relieved from its expensive litigation, and our merchants from the present annoying ques- tion of values. The truth is, the Government since its foundation has been attempt- ing to impose ad valorem rates of duty on an article which from its na- ture, and the conditions creating its value can only be assessed for duty, by a low rate of ad valorem and part specific duty, or what we would term mixed duties. The basis of all legislation for the imposition of duties on imports for the maintenance and support of Government, should be that each citi- zen contributed to sustain the credit of the Government and helps to pay its obligations in the just proportion of his personal means, and his power to so contribute. Now, to levy a specific duty on silks would in a great many cases reverse the natural basis, and impose a heavier rate of duty on a quality of silks generally used by the poorer class of citi- zens while those who consumed the richer goods would pay the lesser duty. To explain, it is a matter well known among merchants and dealers in silk cloths that the poorer quality contains a large proportion of artificial weighting, in the process of dyeing, and the lowest grades contain the most adulteration, consequently under a specific duty ex - clusively , this class of silks would pay more duty than those of a better quality which has less of adulteration, and so on in regular gradation, the richer the silks the more costly the fabric and the less the proportion of duty, until we reach a class of silks so costly in quality of cloth, fineness of silk and superior workmanship combined, that the amount of duty, as measured by weight, when collected as a specific rate would act inversely to the real value, causing the most expensive goods to pay the lowest rate of duty; thus we see a specific rate of duty is not of sufficient advantage to warrant its adoption entirely, while at the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 7 same time it possesses the merits denied to ad valorem rates, of being uniformly collected and makes it a matter of certainty that each im- porter would contribute his just proportion to the revenue ; for it is one of the complaints by the importers as against the present system of ad valorem duties, that while they may not give direct encouragement to systems of undervaluation to evade a part of the duty, they do enable those, who for any reason obtain an advantage by the purchases of silks abroad, to receive additional favors from that benefit incidentally gained ; and thus such importers have a less sum in duties to pay. And the domestic manufacturer is in no better position with an ad valorem rate; for, while the law nominally imposes a rate of duty sufficient to allow him to compete with his foreign rival, the inequalities of valuation, or the evasion of a portion of the duties of the same class of goods, render the task of competition hopeless from the start. Evidently the Government is in earnest in its desires that the tariff shall be so adjusted that a stop will be put to the present injurious frauds on the revenue. Now let them turn their attention to this view of the matter. We feel sure this can be accomplished by the adoption of a system of mixed duties on all silk goods, fixing the ad valorem duty at a low rate, not more than 20 per cent., and the specific rate, say $4 per pound avoirdupois. Of course these figures are only suggestions, sim- ply making the outline of a system, which, if adopted, would entirely remove from the collection of the duty on silks, all the evil practices of which the Government is so justly complaining, as embarrassing to the revenue department under the present system. Indeed we have the example of European Governments who have given to this branch of industry much earnest thought, and this is their method of harmonizing all the varied and various interests grouped under the word silk. The objections uniformly urged against the duties on silk being ivholly specific are self-evident, viz, from the great variety of the values of cloth produced, no standard could be fixed for the purpose of establishing a uniform rate of duty on each, that would fairly include them all. No specific duty whether by weight or measure will do this, hence a mixed tariff is the only remedy applicable to the case. Many and varied as are the suggestions of theorists to divide the kinds and qualities of silk goods into classes for the purpose of impos- ing on each grade its own rate of duty, they are one and all impracti- cable; they cannot be enforced by the officers of customs, nor can persons be found of sufficient experience either in theory or practice of the manufacture of silk to distinguish between each grade and define the classes and mark the distinction intelligently between the differ- ent quality of silk cloth to enable the official to determine the proper assessment. And this is in no wise intended as a disparagement upon the abilities of the customs official, since as a matter of fact we can rarely find two practical manufacturers to agree as to the classification of silk goods of similar grade ; all of which proves the impossibility of any such system simplifying the matter. It would only clog the wheels of Government and render legislation in its application to the customs more of an enigma than ever. All experience has shown that no mode of assessing a duty which is equal to 50 per cent, of the value of the goods can be uniformly col- lected by the principle of ad valorem duties; yet this rate can be fairly depended on, if the system of mixed duties is adopted. And let me here give this additional force by stating clearly that the tariff on silk cannot be collected by either ad valorem or specific rates separately. 8 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The ad valorem duty will be evaded by undervaluation, and the specific would in a great many classes of goods amount to prohibition. While so many serious objections are raised against an ad valorem tariff of 50 per cent., they lose all force in a duty of 20 per cent., for the reason that any attempt at evasion or undervaluation with a duty of 20 per cent, would subject the merchant or importer to the danger of immediate discovery. The whole amount of the ad valorem duty being only one-fifth of the value, to render this a source of profit worthy the attempt at fraud or undervaluation, the invoicing must be to such an extent as would make discovery certain. In calling your attention to this plan of mixed duties I have touched upon the change of rates, because they would naturally follow such a method. In all my efforts for a mixed tariff, and they have been un- ceasing of late years, my desire is that the whole subject of silk might receive the support of wise and stable legislation, and that Congress should pass a law so comprehensive in its scope, so firm in all its de- mands, that by its operation full justice would be done to the whole silk industry. My interest is that of the man who planted the seed here in Paterson a half century ago, and hopes yet to see a strong thrifty tree well grounded in American soil as the result. I fully understand that your circular calls for analysis of the relative difference between the cost of silk goods made in America and those produced in foreign countries, or, in other words, the rate or extent of duty needed to enable the American manufacturer to compete with his foreign rival; also that you seek the reasons which mi^ht be fairly stated as to the cause of the difference, and the manner in which this difference is occasioned, but at this time I have purposely avoided en- tering upon the subject in further detail. I am thoroughly in sympathy with your exertions to have the law so plain in its phraseology that the meaning of no clause, no paragraph, can be wrested from its truthful significance or tortured into forming a base to a suit at law against the United States Government, and at the same time a law which can be enforced at a minimum cost for its collec- tion, free from all expensive and irritating litigation; and wherever, through my fifty years’ experience as a silk manufacturer, still actively engaged, I can be of any service to you, pray command me. Yours, respectfully, JOHN RYLE. [Strange & Brother, silks.'} New York, July 22, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury , Washington , Z>. G. : Dear Sir: Your esteemed favor of 18th instant came duly to hand. In advance of a detailed reply to your various questions and require- ments therein stated, which need more time and attention than we have been able to devote to them up to the present moment, we would state: That the adoption by the Government of a specific, in lieu of the now existing form of ad valorem duty, is the best and only remedy which suggests itself to our minds for the evil of undervaluation upon im- ported silk fabrics. This mode of assessment has been seriously and fully discussed among domestic manufacturers as well as importers, and has been declared not REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 9 only feasible, but also easily susceptible of being made just and equit- able to all parties concerned upon nearly every article which represents the industry. Yours, very respectfully, STRANGE & BRO. [John D. Cutter, silks .'] New York, August 12, 1885. To Hon. Secretary of the Treasury : In reply to your inquiry of July 17, I would respectfully suggest a specific tariff upon silk goods as the only remedy for undervaluation. The ordinary objections to a specific rate of duty do not apply to silk which in any form is an article of luxury. I propose the following classifications and rates of duty : First. That paragraph 451, Schedule N, of the act to which this is an amendment, be, and hereby is, repealed. Second. That the following shall constitute and be a substitute for Schedule L of the act entitled “An act to reduce internal-revenue taxa- tion, and for other purposes,” approved March 3, 1883. Schedule L. — Silk and silk goods. This schedule is intended to be exhaustive of silk, and no provision of the act to which this is an amendment shall be so construed as to withdraw from classification under this schedule any goods in the piece containing 10 per cent, or more by weight of silk, or any article of which silk is the component material of chief value. 380 A. Silk, partially manufactured from cocoons, or from waste silk, and not further advanced, or manufactured than carded or combed silk, 50 cents per pound. B. Thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, organziue, sewing silk, twist, floss, in the gum, $1.50 per pound. 0. The same when purified or dyed, $2.25 per pound. D. The same when warped or wound, $2.50 per pound. E. Spun silk, yarns or threads when not more advanced than three ply, in the gray, 50 cents per pound and £ cent per skein (840 yards) of single. F. The same, if further advanced by doubling (as warps or filloselle), 25 cents per pound additional. G. And the same, if further advanced by being dyed, stained, or printed, 25 cents per pound additional. 381 A. Asiatic silk goods in the piece, made of the wild cocoons of Asia (including and similar to Shanting Pongees, and cloth made of the Tusser silk) when imported from the country of production, $1.50 per pound. B. Asiatic silk goods in the piece, manufactured from silk reeled from the cocoon, but not thrown or twisted, when imported from the country of production, $2.50 per pound. G. Asiatic silk goods in the piece embraced in paragraphs 381 A, or 381 B, when further advanced by dyeing, staining, or printing, in a country other than that of production, in addition to the rate herein- before provided, 9 cents per square yard. 10 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. D. Silk goods in the piece, adulterated with dye-stuffs or weighing matters, when containing less than 66 per cent., but not less than 50 per cent, by weight of pure silk, $2 per pound and 18 cents per square yard. E. The same, when containing less than 50 per cent., but not less than 40 per cent, by weight of pure silk; $1.50 per pound, and 18 cents per square yard. F. The same, when containing less than 40 per cent, but not less than 30 per cent., by weight, of pure silk, $1.25 per pound and 18 cents per square yard. G. The same, when containing less than 30 per cent., by weight, of pure silk, $1 per pound and 18 cents per square yard. H. Silk goods in the piece, made wholly of spun silk, or containing 50 per cent., by weight, of spun silk, the remainder being some other textile than silk, $1.50 per pound and 18 cents per spare yard. I. Goods in the piece containing less than 50 per cent, but not less than 10 per cent., by weight, of spun silk, the remainder being some other textile than silk, 80 cents per pound and 18 cents per square yard. J. All other goods in the piece, except as hereinafter provided, com- posed wholly of silk, or containing 50 per cent, by weight, of silk, $3 per pound and 18 cents per square yard. K. Goods in the piece, containing less than 50 per cent, but not less than 10 per cent., by weight, of silk, the remainder being composed wholly or chiefly of spun silk, $2 per pound and 18 cents per square yard. L. Goods in the piece, containing less than 50 per cent., but not less than 30 per cent., by weight, of silk, the remainder being some other textile than spun silk, $1.60 per pound and 12 cents per square yard. M Goods ki the piece, containing less than 30 per cent., but not less than 20 per cent, by weight, of silk, the remainder being some other textile than spun silk, $1.25 per pound and 12 cents per square yard. N. Goods in the piece, containing less than 20 per cent., but not less than 10 per cent., by weight, of silk, the remainder being some other textile than spun silk, $1 per pound and 12 cents per square yard. O. Goods classified under paragraph 381 A to 381 Q, inclusive, shall be subject to the following rates of duty in addition to the rate or rates hereinbefore provided, viz: P. Velvet or plush, cut or uncut, or fabrics in which velvet or plush, cut or uncut, is combined with other tissue or tissues, when the pile is made wholly of spun silk, 50 cents per pound. Q. And when made wholly or chiefly of reeled silk, $2 per pound. R. Jacquard or figured goods, which require for their production not more than two shuttles, six cents per square yard. S. And for each additional shuttle required in their production, 3 cents per square yard. T. Plaids, checks, or stripes requiring more than two shuttles, 6 cents per square yard. U. Embroidery, 24 cents per square yard, which shall be levied upon the entire surface of the piece upon which the embroidery is worked. 382. A. In ascertaining the percentage of silk contained in any of the goods described in paragraphs 381 H to 381 IN', inclusive, the weight of the threads shall be taken as they are found in the fabric, whether pure or adulterated. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 11 B. Ribbons, flat braids, bindings, handkerchiefs, scarfs (not made up), and shawls of silk shall be classified as goods in the piece. O. Paragraphs 381 D to 381 U, inclusive, shall not apply to goods in the piece weighing more than fifty-four hundredths of a pound per square yard. 383. A. On all goods, wares, and merchandise, not otherwise pro- vided for in this schedule and not on the free-list, made of silk, or con- taining 10 per cent., by weight, of silk, or of which silk is the compo- nent material of chief value, 50 per cent, ad valorem. Respectfully submitted. JOHN D. CUTTER, Union Square , New York City. A PLEA FOR A SPECIFIC TARIFF UPON SILKS. The leading silk importers of New York asked the Tariff Commission for a specific duty on silk goods. The silk manufacturers of the country repeated this request, and the leading com- mercial papers have shown a specific tariff to he the only true remedy for existing evils. Every one will admit that a specific tariff is desirable wherever practicable, because it is uniform in its operation — it serves all alike. It does not demand the skill of an expert to fix the value, nor does it admit of disputes, reappraisements, and lawsuits. The objection to a specific duty is that it tends to bear most heavily upon the cheap- est goods, and so seems to discriminate against the poor man. But this objection does not apply to silk. Silk in any form is an article of luxury, and the cheaper sorts of silk are worthless on account of adulteration, and ought to be discriminated against by the tariff as a matter of public policy. Specific duties are better suited to silk than to either cotton or woolen fabrics, because raw silk is composed of fine threads, while cotton and wool are only fiber, and the cost of making that fiber into thread is a very uncertain one. A cotton yarn may be so coarse as to be worth but a few cents per pound more than raw cotton, and again it may be spun so fine as to be worth more than silk. The cost of making the yarn may be 5 cents or it may be $5 per pound. This statement applies also, in a measure, to woolen yarns. Not so with silk. Its threads are not spun out of fiber at uncertain cost. The worm has already made the threads for us, and made them finer than man can use, even in the production of his finest fabrics, and it costs a trifle to double together enough of these fine filaments to make a thread stout enough for our spindles and shuttles. Here, then, we have a common starting-point for the cost of silk fabrics, viz, the cost of the raw silk. I say, then, that a specific tariff fits silk goods like a glove every way you look at it ; it simply fits and no wrinkles. To-day silk goods cause an amount of labor, trouble, and reapprisement at the custom-house out of all proportion to their volume. Silk goods are of great value — the difficulty of fixing that value is also great — thus the temptation to undervalue them is the maximum. Silk is the subject of 95 per cent, of all the reappraisements at the New York custom-house. But there are other reasons for a specific tariff. Silk is an article of very unstable value. During the past seven years Italian raw silk has ranged from 50 francs to 140 fra ncs per kilo. All goods made from this staple must participate in the fluctuations of the cost of the raw material. But, in addition, manufactured goods have their own fluctuations, and of these silk goods have more than their share, because silk is purely an article of luxury, ornament, and fashion. General prosperity gives it a boom, hard times kill it, and a change of fashion buries any article which has lost popular favor. Add to the violent fluctuations in the cost of raw silk, the ebb and flood of pros- perity, and the sum of these to the caprices of fashion, and no one can deny that silk goods are a most unstable article of merchandise in any market. But to all these add once more, 50 per cent ad valorem, and you have the frightful aggregate of contingen- cies which make up the value of imported silk goods in this market. Is it any wonder that for a generation it has been an axiom, “No jobber of silk 12 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. goods exclusively can live in New York.” Where are they, one and all, from Arthur Tappan down ? Is not this an urgent reason for a specific duty which, by loading this most unstable article of merchandise with a constant quantity, shall make it more stable here than abroad, rather than by an ad valorem duty aggravating and extending its instability? But some say, “ a duty levied per pound will not produce the same result as ad volorem.” No; why should it? If the duty is changed, we must change our looms and our importations to fit the new order of things. Some goods now imported would be made here. Some now made here would have to be abandoned and would be im- ported. The line would be drawn clearly and sharply. The importer would know just what he could import at a profit, and the manufacturer just what he could manu- facture here. The uncertainties of the present situation would be eliminated, and both the home manufacturer and the importer could work for less profit, because they would incur less risk. The duty being a certain quantity, commission merchants could take orders for foreign goods on very exact estimates of cost, and for a small commission, and our large merchants could once more resume their importation's on their own account, which, under an ad valorem tariff, have been, are, and will be impossible, unless the would-be importer becomes a custom-house broker, and spends half his time watching what is going on at the public store, so that he may squeeze his goods through at as low a valuation as any of his competitors. I have said the line would be clearly drawn between goods which could be made here and those which must be imported. Suppose that a duty of $4 per pound is imposed. It is generally assumed that the the cost of manufacturing silk here is about three times the cost of the same in France. On these figures it is clear that a pound of raw silk (costing the same in Lyons that it does in New York) put into cloth of a given texture, at a cost for labor of $2 per pound in Lyons, would in New York cost $6 per pound. The duty of $4 would in this case exactly offset the cheap foreign labor, and put the importer and home manufacturer in direct and even competition. But any fabric which should cost to make in Lyons more than $2 would have to be imported — because the $4 duty would be inadequate protection. For instance, sup- pose a certain article cost to make abroad $3 per pound, add the duty $4=$>7, which would be the cost to import. On the ratio of domestic to foreign cost which we have assumed, viz, 3 to 1, the cost of making the same article here would be $9, or $2 more than the cost of foreign labor plus the duty. On the other hand, any article cost- ing to make here less than $6 per pound could not be imported. If the ratio of cost of foreign and domestic labor here assumed, viz, 3 to 1, is incor- rect, it does not alter the argument. The line between the goods which could be made here and those which could not would be distinct. It might be higher or it might be lower than the figures above named, but it would fix itself by the true ratio of the cost here to the cost there. I advocate a square-yard duty in addition to a pound duty, though some object to this because it is a “ compound” duty. But calling a thing a hard name don’t hurt it. The labor on silk is “per pound” in the preliminary processes, until you come to weaving ; and even here the “per-pound” duty fits very well, and cannot be entirely, discarded. However, on the lighter silks, this “per-pound” duty would creep away from its relation to the cost of labor and needs to be re-enforced by a duty on the sur- face or “per square yard.” A square-yard duty is in disrepute, and justly so, because our legislators have never made it simple and easy to calculate. This prejudice should be removed, and the prin- ciple laid down that all square-yard duties, as well as all limitations of cost per square yard, must be at the rate of 36 cents per square yard, or some multiple of 36, or some decimal or aliquot part of 36. Above I have suggested 18 cents, t. e., i cent per inch in width. It requires no cal- culation. One has only to lay a yard-stick on the goods, and one-half of the width in inches is the duty per running yard. If this is “ compound,” it is as easy as 2 and 2 make 4, and a school-boy could run the public store under such a tariff. I would abandon the old classification, “silk, chief value.” It needs an expert, and then he don’t know what to make of it. Does it mean the silk when it was raw silk, worth more than the cotton or the wool when they were fiber or yarn ; or does it refer to each when at last each is in its place in the fabric? At best its value is uncertain. No two men could agree about it. The scales used in the appraiser’s office, in the New York public store, will weigh with accuracy a fraction of a grain. I propose that this certain and exact method be applied to mixed goods to determine how much silk they contain, and on this deter- mination the goods be classified — as silk, if containing more than 8 per cent of silk, and, if not, then they must go in some other class anil beyond my ken. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 13 I advocate the folio-wing: Specific tariff for silk goods. Per pound. 1. Raw silk, cocoons, silk waste, silk- worm eggs Free. 2. Combed waste $0 50 3. Thrown silk, tram, organzine, and sewings, in the gum — chappe or spun-silk yarns undyed 1 00 4. Same, dyed 2 00 5. Asiatic silk goods in the piece, when imported from the country of produc- tion 3 00 6. All other silk goods in the piece, composed wholly of silk, or containing more than 60 per cent, by weight of silk, 18 cents per square yard -f- $3 per pound. 7. Same, containing not more than 60 per cent., but more than 25 per cent., of silk, 18 cents per square yard + $2 per pound. 8. Same, containing not more than 25 per cent., but more than 8 per cent., of silk, 18 cents per square yard -f- $1 per pound. A. Handkerchiefs, scarfs, and shawls are to be classified as goods in the piece, and their measure is to be taken to the extremity of the fringe (if any). B. The weight of silk threads is to be taken as they are found in the fabric, whether pure or adulterated. 9. All other articles of silk, or of which silk is the component of chief value, 50 per cent, ad valorem. JOHN D. CUTTER. [Wright Brothers & Co., silks and umbrellas.'] Philadelphia, August 5, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular in regard to ad valorem and specific duties on merchandise, and as to how our business is affected by undervaluation, we would briefly state that the nature of our business is the manufacture of umbrellas and parasols. Of foreign cotton goods we use and import but a comparatively small amount, say $10,000 or less per annum. The duties are both specific and ad valorem, and there could not be or has not been undervaluation to affect us. Of foreign woolen goods (alpaca and mohair) we import to the extent of perhaps $25,000 per annum. The duties on these, too, are both specific and ad valorem, and, though enormously high, we are not in- juriously affected by undervaluation. Of foreign silk goods we use to the extent of about $175,000 per year, but do not and cannot import any, on account of the uniform and gross undervaluation, notwithstanding we have a buyer in Europe every year, and provided with unlimited credit. We doubt whether any prominent manufacturer or agent would even quote us prices in francs, but instead quote prices in dollars and cents, goods deliverable through their agents in New York. The goods are consigned to an agent in this country, and undervalued. While we cannot verify it, we do not believe that 95 per cent, of the silk goods that come into this country pay duties on more than 60 to 70 per cent, on actual value. We believe that the just way of collecting duties is by ad valorem rates, hut as it seems impossible to collect them honestly by that system on sillc goods, we would favor the mixed rate of, say, 15 per cent, ad valorem and — cents per square yard. It would be advisable, however, where the material is part cotton (cotton or linen, or other fiber than silk preponderating in weight), to retain the 15 per 14 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cent, ad valorem rate, but to make the specific rate much lower than on all silk goods. Possibly the specific rate might be adjudged at — cents per pound in place of a rate per square yard. Very respectfully, yours, WEIGHT BROTHERS & CO. [The same.] Philadelphia, October 22, 1885. C. S. Fairchild, Esq., Assistant Secretary , Treasury Department , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: Your letter of 21st instant is at hand, in which you refer to that portion of our letter of 20th relating to discrimination against us as manufacturers under existing rates of duties, &c., and asking what rates of duties od the manufactured articles (umbrellas aud para- sols), or on the materials thereof, should, in our opinion, be levied. We must still reiterate our opinion that on any complete manufact- ured article the rate of duty should be higher than is exacted on its chief component part or parts. Silk umbrellas are largely imported and at a little less cost than we * can manufacture them. We have to pay 50 per cent, duty on the silks, while the umbrellas also come in at same rate. We think, therefore, that if the rate on silks is to remain at 50 per cent., then the duty on silk umbrellas should be 60 per cent. In alpaca or mohair umbrellas, where the cloths pay 80 to 85 per cent, and the umbrellas only 50 per cent., we might similarly ask on um- brellas a rate of, say, 95 per cent. ; but they are not largely imported as yet , and, believing in the absurdity of asking such a high nominal rate, we would suggest a uniform rate of 60 per cent, on all umbrellas and parasols of whatever material. Our interest in foreign fabrics of silk or wool, alpaca, &c. (however important to ourselves as manufacturers of umbrellas, &c.), is so insig- nificant compared with the general consumption of such classes of goods that we do not feel authorized to express an opinion as to what rates they should pay, nor would we be able to give a fair opinion without that thorough investigation of all the points that we are hardly able to make. Our interests might be justly protected through u drawbacks,” but such a system opens the door so wide for frauds that we cannot recom- mend it. Very truly, yours, WRIGHT BROTHERS & CO. [Ellis, Knapp & Co., umbrellas and parasols.] Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Few York, December 4, 1885. Dear Sir : In response to your circular sent us on the question of tariff revision, we desire to say, that we fail to see how a change from REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 15 ad valorem to specific duty could, in our business, make an equitable adjustment of values. It in applying specific duty any question of values is raised, the Government would have the same difficulty to en- counter as now confronts it in the present undervaluations. On the other hand, if values are not to be considered, the duty would unques- tionably operate unfairly on either the low or high grade of goods, and thus prove prejudicial to their manufacture in this country. Our busi- ness is already handicapped with foreign labor in not having the duty on manufactured umbrellas higher than the material of which the article is principally composed, consequently any additional burden would doubtlessly result in withdrawal of capital. But, aside from the feasi- bility of a change of tariff, the mere agitation of the subject by the forth- coming Congress would result disastrously to the general business of the country, just at the time when it is beginning to recover from the long depression and is exceedingly sensitive to any drawback what- ever. We sincerely trust, therefore, that wiser counsel may prevail and the matter be allowed to rest for the present. Yours, respectfully, ELLIS, KNAPP & CO. [John V. Farwell & Co., dry goods."] Chicago, September 9, 1885. The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury: Dear Sir: [Replying to your circular letter of July 22 in regard to tariff reform, we would say that as far as textile fabrics are concerned we regard a specific duty both feasible and in every way desirable. Without going into technical terms or details, which your experts can supply, we would suggest as a general principle that different spe- cific duties be levied according to the raw-material organization of the fabric, viz, silk, silk and wool, silk and cotton, all wool, all cotton, cot- ton and wool, &c., and that these classes be subdivided, with different duties, according to some well known and easily defined generic terms, viz, velvets and silks, cashmeres and fancy woolen fabrics, linen dress goods, crash toweling, table damask, &c., which can easily be arranged by experts. The equivalents to present duties can best be arranged by your ex- perts, but we would advise that they be amply sufficient to protect us on the low-priced fabrics, which, of course, a specific duty will tend to do, and that the undervaluations now in vogue be carefully taken into consideration in this adjustment. As to your last question, we are entirely unable to import any silks or Hamburg edgings, being sometimes able to purchase such goods laid down in New York duty paid, as cheaply as from the manufactur- ers on the Continent. We are obliged to purchase all such goods from “importers.” ####### We would also advise the entire removal of the duties on raw mate- rials and dye-stuffs, feeling confident that no change in the tariff would do more to increase our trade with foreign countries on textile fabrics. 16 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. and, by opening up this outlet, tend to prevent the great and violent fluctuations in prices, which are so disastrous to a healthy industrial growth. We are gratified to know that this matter is being investi- gated, and respectfully submit the above as our general opinions. Any questions we can answer we should be glad to have asked. Very respectfully, JOHN Y. FARWELL & CO. [Weatherby, Stevens & Co., dry goods . ] Cincinnati, July 27, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir: In our opinion it would be unwise and seriously disturb the business of the country to make any radical change in the revenue laws. A specific duty, it seems to us, would increase the price of the cheaper grades of goods, and at the same time reduce the price of the finer grades, thus putting additional burdens on the poor and laboring classes of our people. To insure proper appraisement an advisory board should be j)rovided for to act in connection with the appraiser of merchandise, this board to be composed of well-known business men, whose records are clean on the books of the Treasury Department, and who shall be paid for their services out of the United States Treasury, the board to be called upon to act only when complaint is made, by a responsible party or firm, of injustice in appraisement. Yours, respectfully, WEATHERBY, STEVENS & CO. [Lee, Tweedy & Co., dry goods. ] New York, August 12, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : Your communication of the 1st instant is before us, and we take pleasure in responding as far as possible to your request. We assume it to be a fact, and the result of onr experience of forty years in the dry goods importing business is, that with an ad valorem tariff' ranging from 44 to 100 per cent, upon dry goods there will al- ways be evasion of the law, and honest importers will have to suffer as a consequence. Specific duties would undoubtedly correct undervalua- tion ; but, while abolishing the ad valorem system and substituting specific to such degree as to be equal to the existing high rate above stated, although the possibility of bribery and collusion would be to a very large extent done away with, yet the fact of such high rates exist- ing holds out temptation, and new methods mav be adopted to evade the payment of the legal duties. The safety of the Government in the collection of its just revenue, therefore, is in the lowering of the rates. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 17 As much revenue would be collected, and, we may add, it would en- courage the old standard houses to continue in the business of import- ing direct, for it is a fact that nearly 80 per cent, of the foreign goods sold to-day in the wholesale markets of the United States are “landed” in dollars and cents by foreign manufacturers 7 agents temporarily resi- dent here, and you can readily understand why American merchants are obliged to buy their goods from this class of u landing” importers. We have imported similar goods to those u landed” until we have been almost completely shut out of the business. They can sell us the goods at a good profit to themselves and then be cheaper than we can import them ; and they do not stop at that, but will make regular tours through the large cities and take orders for delivery. The business of the honest importer is of short duration unless some- thing is done, and we will hail with delight any effort Congress may make to put a stop to such open and outrageous frauds. The writer of this has endeavored to impress upon the various com- missions which have been in this city “to inquire into the causes,” &c., that the only remedy to be relied upon is a reduction of the rates all around, and, if that is impracticable, then the old English method of allowing all parties to enter the goods and, if suspicion of under- valuation exists, then the Government, at its option, can take them at the face value of the invoice so entered, plus 10 i>er cent., and then dis- pose of them at public auction. Pardon our digression from the subject matter of your letter, as we are reminded that you inquire more particularly from merchants their views as to the feasibility of substituting specific rates for ad valorem, and not as to the reduction of them. We think it is feasible, and as evidence of our conclusions we refer you to the tables inclosed, which we have had carefully prepared in our office to go with this reply. The principal fabrics in which we deal, and which suffer so much by undervaluation, are: Silks, all-wool and wool-mixed dress-goods, shawls, and hosiery. The tables we refer to are for all-wool and wool-mixed dress goods. Column D gives the range of prices from 6 cents per square yard up to $2. Columus A, B, 0 are the exact amounts in British, French, and German currencies (to the nearest decimal), which equals our currency (D). For example, 1.04 francs, 0.84 mark, and 9.8 6d. sterling, all equal our 20 cents. The three double columns at the right of column D show the present rates of duty per square yard, equal to the compound rates of 5.35, 7.40, and 9.40 and the equivalents of the same by per cent. For example, goods at 9.37 (say, 9f d. sterling) under 20 cents in value per square yard, hence paying 5 cents per square yard and 35 per cent, ad valorem, the total of these two rates put specific on the square yard is 11.65 cents, and that is the equal of 61 per cent. If goods at the same price ster- ling be narrower, so that the value per square yard exceeds 20 cents, then the duty is 7 cents per square yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem. The total duty of these two rates when put specific on the square yard is 14.60 cents, and the equal of that is 77 per cent. Bead the 9.40 col- umn in tbe same way, but observe there is no change of the rate on all-wool goods based on the value of the square yard. You will see by this table how etfsy it is to defraud the Government by undervaluing Id. sterling or 0 10 franc. Ten per cent, undervalua- tion gives 3\ and 4 per cent, unlawful gain. But one of the best oppor- tunities, and a great temptation, is at the turning point where rates change from 5.35 to 7.40 — where the square yard value exceeds 20 S. Ex. 72 2 18 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cents. At that point, by undervaluing even 1 cent, the gain instead of 3J is 15 per cent., which please see. Now, the important problem arises how to abolish the 35 and 40 per cent, and place the equivalent by specific duty on the square yard or on the weight. We will confine ourselves in this answer to the column 9.40. We there find already a uniform rate of 9 cents on every yard and at every price, hence a disproportionate value — (the higher priced goods being proportionately the cheaper). Now, suppose we take away, for example, the 40 per cent, from the goods costing 1.50 francs, that would be 11.60 cents to be put specific on either the square yard or upoD the weight, and as the quality of goods is known by its count of threads and twills, by its weight, and by its classification, we think the 11.60 could be placed. The making of a table of such rates so regu- lated by twills, weight, and classification we feel confident could be effected by a committee of intelligent business men who are familiar with the various textures. They would get so near to it that the present basis would not be seriously disturbed. If, however, by any means it should appear that the plan we have suggested cannot be made practicable, then a reduction of the ad valorem rate to 20 per cent, would leave but 20 per cent, to be distributed specific, and diminish the profit of the fraud one half. Yours, very respectfully, LEE, TWEEDY & CO., Per WILLIAM H. LEE. REVISION OF THE TARIFF 19 Rates of duty on dress goods under four ounces per square yard. [Equivalents: Franc =19. 30 cents; mark=23.80 cents; £1=486.65 cents.] Franc, pr. sq. yd. Mark, pr. sq. yd. Ste^i-ng, pr. sq. yd. United States, pr. sq. yd. Franc. Mark. s. d. 0. 31 0.25 2. 96 $0 06 .36 .29 3. 45 07 .41 .34 3. 91 08 .47 .38 4. 44 09 .52 .42 4. 93 10 .57 .46 5. 42 11 .62 .50 5. 91 12 .67 . 55 6. 41 13 .73 .59 6. 90 14 .78 .63 7.40 15 .83 .67 7. 89 16 .88 .71 8. 38 17 .93 .76 8. 88 18 .98 .80 9. 37 19 1.04 .84 9. 86 20 1.09 .88 10. 36 21 1.14 .92 10. 85 22 1. 19 .97 11.34 23 1. 24 1.01 11.84 24 1.30 1. 05 12.33 25 1. 35 1. 09 12. 82 26 1. 40 1. 13 13. 32 27 1. 45 1. 18 13. 81 28 1. 50 1. 22 14. 30 29 1. 55 1. 26 14. 80 30 1. 61 1. 30 15. 29 31 1. 66 1. 34 1 03| 32 1.71 1. 39 1 044 33 1.76 1. 43 1 04J 34 1.81 1. 47 1 05J 35 1.87 1.51 1 05| 36 1.92 1.55 1 064 37 1.97 1. 60 1 064 38 2. 02 1. 64 1 074 39 2. 07 1. 68 1 074 40 2. 12 1. 72 1 084 41 2. 18 1.76 1 084 42 2. 23 1. 81 1 094 43 2. 28 1.85 1 094 44 2. 33 1. 89 l 104 45 2. 38 1.93 l 104 46 2.44 1.97 l 114 47 2. 49 2. 02 l lif 48 2. 54 2. 06 2 004 49 2. 59 2. 10 2 OOf 50 2. 85 2.31 2 034 55 • 3.11 2. 52 2 05§ 60 3. 37 2. 73 2 08 65 3. 63 2. 94 2 104 70 3.89 3. 15 3 01 75 4.15 3. 36 3 034 80 4. 40 3. 57 3 06 85 4. 66 3. 78 3 08f 90 4. 92 3. 99 3 10| 95 5.18 4. 20 4 014 1 00 5.70 4. 62 4 064 1 10 6. 22 5. 04 4 114 1 20 6. 74 5. 46 5 044 1 30 7. 25 5. 88 5 09 1 40 7. 77 6. 30 6 02 1 50 8. 29 6. 72 7 07 1 60 8. 81 7. 14 7 00 1 70 9. 33 7. 56 7 04 4 1 80 9. 84 7. 98 7 094 1 90 10. 36 8.40 8 03 2 00 A B C D Dress goods wholly or in part of wool. 5.35 Goods under 20 cts. in value per sq. yd. paying 5 cts. per sq. yd. and 35 % ad v. Equals duty, sq. yd. Equals ad valo- rem. Cents. 7. 10 7. 45 7. 80 8.15 8. 50 8. 85 9. 20 9. 55 9. 90 10. 25 10. 60 10. 95 11. 30 11.65 12. 00 U) Per cent. 118 106 98 90 85 80 77 73 71 68 61 64 63 61 60 (*) E 7.40 Goods over 20 cts. in value per sq. yd. paying duty 7 cts. per sq. yd. and 40 % ad v. 9.40 All wool goods over or under 20 cts. paying 9 cts. per sq. yd. and 40 % ad v. Equals duty, sq. yd. Equals ad valo- rem. Equals duty, sq. yd. Equals ad valo- rem. Cents. Per cent. Cents. Per cent. 9. 40 157 11.40 190 9. 80 140 11.80 169 10. 20 128 12. 20 153 10. 60 118 12. 60 140 11.00 110 13. 00 130 11.40 104 13. 40 122 11. 80 ' 98 13. 80 115 12. 20 94 14. 20 109 12. 60 90 14. 60 104 13. 00 87 15. 00 100 13. 40 84 15.40 96 13. 80 81 15. 80 93 14. 20 79 16. 20 90 14. 60 77 16. 60 87 15. 00 75 17. 00 85 15. 40 73 17. 40 83 15. 80 72 17. 80 81 16. 20 70 18. 20 79 16. 60 69 18. 60 78 17. 00 68 19. 00 76 17. 40 67 19. 40 75 17. 80 66 19. 80 73 18. 20 65 20. 20 72 18. 60 64 20. 60 71 19. 00 63 21.00 70 19. 40 62 21.40 69 19. 80 62 21.80 68 20. 20 61 22. 20 67 20. 60 61 22. 60 66 21.00 60 23. 00 21.40 59 23. 40 65 21. 80 23. 80 64 22. 20 58 24. 20 22. 60 24.60 63 23. 00 57 25. 00 23 40 25. 40 62 23. 80 25. 80 61 24. 20 56 26. 20 24. 60 26. 60 25. 00 27. 00 60 25.40 55 27. 40 25. 80 27. 80 • 59 26. 20 28. 20 26. 60 54 28. 60 58 27.00 29. 00 57 29. 00 53 31. 00 56 31.00 52 33. 00 55 33. 00 51 35. 00 54 35. 00 50 37.00 53 37. 00 49 39. 00 52 39. 00 41. 00 51 41. 00 48 43. 00 43. 00 45. 00 50 45. 00 47 47. 00 47. 00 49. 00 49 51.00 46 53. 00 55. 00 57. 00 48 59. 00 61.00 47 63. 00 45 65. 00 67. 00 69. 00 46 71. 00 73. 00 45 75. 00 44 77. 00 79. 00 81.00 83. 00 85. 00 87. 00 m 89. 00 44£ * When the value per square yard exceeds 20 cents the duty advances to 7 cents and 40 per cent. 20 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Marshall Field & Co., dry goods. ] Chicago, October — 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: Replying to your letter of July 27, we have the honor to submit the following : Our endeavor has been to substitute specific for ad valorem rates, especially on such merchandise as we have suffered injury on because of undervaluation. We think the present rates of duty entirely too high, and would recommend a reduction on all dry goods to rates not to exceed twenty- five per cent, ad valorem, and would have the law simplified so that there would be, as far as possible, no doubtful classifications. We see no necessity of making the tariff so complicated that it can be read and understood differently by collector and appraiser at differ- ent ports. It is of the greatest importance that the same rates on like articles be collected at all the ports in the country. We have knowrn Chicago importers to clear their goods at New York because the appraisers there were more liberal in their classifications. Probably not more than one-half khe imported goods distributed at Chicago are passed through the custom-house here, although it is much more convenient. We believe that if specific rates are adopted the amount of duties we pay each year will be doubled; or, in other words, the business we are no w obliged to do through aliens will be done by ourselves. We believe in severe penalties, equal, if need be, to double the amount of duty, where the Government can clearly establish false values or in- tentional attempt to defraud the revenue by means of falsification of invoices as regards weights, count, measures, &c. In answer to your question as to what classes of merchandise we have suffered greatest injury on account of evasions of the tariff, we submit the following, and would say that a large proportion of the goods so named are manufactured on the continent of Europe, coming mainly from France, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Italy : Silk piece goods and plushes; wool and mohair plushes; silk and silk and cotton velvets; silk and velvet ribbons; silk trimmings ; pearl buttons; Swiss and French embroideries; silk, cotton, and wool laces; cloaks and other garments; wool, worsted, and silk shawls; wool, worsted, and mohair dress goods; perfumery and toilet articles; kid, leather, silk, cotton, and woolen gloves. The following is a schedule showing rates of duty which, in our opinion, should be levied upon the various kinds and qualities of mer- chandise named : Women’s and children’s dress goods and real or imitation Italian cloths, composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals, weighing under 4 ounces to the square yard per square yard.. Over 4 ounces to the square yard do Knit goods, hosiery, underwear, gloves, &c., composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, hair of alpaca, goat, or other like animals per pound.. Braids, wool or mohair. do Yarns, wool, mohair, or worsted do Shawls do Cloaks do Clothing do All other manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided do Cents. 6 8 80 50 50 80 80 80 60 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 21 CARPETS. Cents. Aubusson, Axmiuster, Moquette, Wilton and velvet per square yard- . 60 Body Brussels do 50 Tapestry Brussels do 40 Ingrain Brussels do 30 Rugs subject to same rates of duty as imposed on carpets or carpeting of like character of description. We would recommend that no distinction be made in the classifica- tion of wool and of worsted. LINENS. Ad valorem. Brown and bleached canvas, crash, damasks, diapers, drills, and coating ducks, handkerchiefs, lawns, padding, laces, and embroideries, and all manufact- ures of flax, jute, and hemp per cent. . 25 COTTONS. All woven fabrics of cotton in the piece, properly coming within the designation of cloth, and bought and sold by linear measurement, and the threads of which can be counted, should pay the following rates of duty, except such as are specially named and provided for : Cents. If unbleached, and under 100 threads to square inch per sq. yd.. 2 If bleached, stained, or painted do 3 If unbleached and over 100 and under 200 threads do 3 If bleached, stained, or painted do 4 If unbleached and over 200 threads to square inch do ... . 4 If bleached, stained, or painted do 5 A<1 valorem. Cotton binding, braces, braids, drawers, yarns, and thread, shirts, embroideries, laces, marking-cotton, floss, gimps, fringes, gloves, handkerchiefs, hosiery, curtains, trimmings, velvets, wearing-apparel, terry, plush, and all manu- facures of cotton, or of which cotton is the component material of chief value per cent . . 25 SILK. All manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, usually bought and sold by linear measure per pound.. $2 50 Silk hosiery, underwear, braids, ribbons, trimmings, buttons, gloves, &c., per pound 2 00 All other manufactures, or of which silk is the component material . .per pound . . 2 00 KID OR LEATHER GLOVES. All kid gloves not exceeding 12 inches from tip of third finger to top of glove, per dozen 2 50 If over 12 inches and under 15 inches per dozen. . 3 00 If over 15 inches do 4 00 Lambskin or schmaschen, not exceeding 12 inches do 2 00 If over 12 inches and under 15 inches do 2 50 If over 15 inches do 3 00 All leather gloves of every description having felt, cloth, plush, or other lining, or if faced with other fabrics, subject to same rates of duty as above. Alcoholic perfumery * per gallon.. 10 00 Soap per pound . . 10 Face powder percent, ad valorem.. 25 SUNDRIES. All kinds baskets, beads, and bead ornaments, brushes, buttons (including brass and gilt), card-cases, pocket-books, and similar articles; clocks, combs, dolls, and toys; metal galloons, laces, knots, stars, tassels, thread, etc. ; fans, articles and garments of fur, hair cloth, India-rubber fabrics composed wholly or in part of rubber, jet, and imitations of, jewelry, and imifatious of, articles and manufactures of leather, papier-mach6, pencils, umbrellas, parasols, watches, and webbing composed of any material per cent, ad valorem.. 25 Yours, very respectfully, MARSHALL FIELD & CO. 22 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY [Arnold, Constable & Co., dry goods.] New York, October 5, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary: Sir: In answer to your circular we beg to say — That we have given the inquiries therein mentioned our careful con- sideration. J n the present tariff the duties are almost entirely of ad valorem rates, and where double duties are collected the ad valorem is so high as to give the foreign manufacturer a large profit in undervalua- tion; this has driven the honest American importer entirely from the market in many articles, such as silks, velvets, and dress goods, com- pelling him to have his goods delivered here in dollars and cents by the agents of foreign manufacturers. We have submitted a tariff which we think would yield the Govern- ment about 80 per cent, of the present revenue. We have added a double rate of duty as being more just to the consumers of the lower-priced articles. The ad valorem is always at 10 per cent. ; now, if the under- valuation was 25 per cent., it would only make a difference of 2J per cent, ad valorem, which the honest importer could stand. Very respectfully, •AENOLD, CONSTABLE & CO. Wools and all raw materials should be admitted free of duty, to enable the American manufacturer to ship goods to foreign countries free. Manufacturers of wool and worsted should pay the same rate of duty. COTTON MANUFACTURES. On all manufactures of cotton of every description, 20 per cent, ad valorem. Cotton being a product of this country, a duty of 20 per cent, should be ample pro- tection. The import charges are about 10 per cent, ad valorem, which really gives a protection of 30 per cent, ad valorem. LINENS, ETC. On all manufactures of whatever description, composed of flax, hemp, nr jute, 25 per cent, ad valorem. Very few if any linens, &c., are manufactured in this country; the reduction there- fore would not interfere with any American industry. WOOLENS, ETC. Cloths, cassimeres, shawls, table-covers, and all manufactures that can be measured, not otherwise provided for, composed of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animal, or when mixed with material of less value, 30 cents per square yard and 10 per cent, ad valorem. Braids, bindings, fringes, cords, tassels, embroideries, laces, insertings, shirts, drawers, hosiery, clothing, in whole or in part made up, and all articles known as small wares, composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animal, 30 per cent, ad valorem. Blankets, composed of wool or worsted or when mixed with a material of less value, valued at not exceeding 20 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem ; valued at over 20 cents per pound and not exceeding 30 cents per pound, 15 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem ; valued at over 30 cents per pound and not exceeding 40 cents per pound, 20 cents per pound and 10 per ceut ad valorem ; valued at over 40 cents per pound and not exceeding 60 cents per pound, 30 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem ; valued at over 60 cents per pound, 40 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. The present rate of duty on blankets is so high as to make it prohibitory. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 23 Women’s and children’s dress goods, flannels, coat linings, Italian cloths, and goods of Tike description composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animal costing not over 30 cents per square yard, 6 cents per square yard, and 10 per cent, ad valorem, costing over 30 cents per square yard, 8 cents per square yard and 10 per cent, ad valorem. A specific duty aud a low ad valorem rate we consider necessary, the low ad valorem rate equalizes to a certain extent the low and high priced goods without being an incentive to undervaluation. The weight clause should be abolished as it tends to keep out a great many coarse, warm fabrics suitable for the poorer classes. Formerly goods costing from 4 pence to 7 pence sterling were imported largely ; under the present tariff they have been driven from the market. Consequently the revenue has been lost to the Government. carpets, &c. Wilton and Axminster carpets, 70 cents per square yard ; brussels and velvets, 30 cents per square yard; tapestry brussels, 20 cents per square yard; ingrain, 12 cents per square yard ; druggets, printed or colored, 10 cents per square yard ; oil cloth and linoleum, 6 cents per square yard ; carpets woven whole for rooms, rugs and mats of whatever size, 30 per cent, ad valorem. SILKS, &c. On all piece silks or manufactures of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise provided for, not exceeding in weight 1 ounce to the square yard, 35 per cent, ad valorem. On piece silks weighing over 1 ounce to the square yard, $1.50 per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. On piece silk and cotton manufactures, silk chief value, 75 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. SILKS AND VELVETS. On all silk velvets, $3.50 per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem. On silk and cotton velvets, silk chief value, $1.50 per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. A compound duty we consider fairest and the best protection. With an ad valorem rate only, the undervaluations make it impossible for the honest importer to do any business ; a specific and a low ad valorem rate equalizes to a certain extent the low and high priced goods without being an incentive to undervaluations. Ribbons, ribbon velvets, clothing in whole or part made up, trimmings, braids, galloons, gloves, mitts, shirts, drawers, hosiery, laces, and all other manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not otherwise pro- vided for, 35 per cent, ad valorem. Oaths should be abolished. The importer should be allowed to enter the goods at any price he chooses, and if found to be undervalued the Government should take the goods and pay the importer from 5 per cent, to 7| percent., in addition to invoice price. This method would save a great deal of trouble and annoyance both to the Government and the importer. Articles known as dry goods should not pay a higher rate of duty than 40 per cent, ad valorem. All petty charges at custom-house for oaths, permits, &c., should be abolished. Consular certificates on invoices should be done away with, as it puts the importer to considerable trouble and delay. Samples should be sent to sample office immediately on arrival ; if dutiable the im- porter should be allowed to pay duty there, without going through the long formality now in vogue, which takes from two to five days. Entries should be passed the same day they are left at the custom-house, and should be liquidated within 30 days, which liquidation should be final except for clerical error or fraud. GLOVES. On all leather gloves of every description an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent.; the present rate is 50 per cent, ad valorem— a duty which cannot be collected, and every honest importer owning the goods has been driven from the market ; they are now wholly consigned by the manufacturer. 24 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [James McCreery & Co., silk manufactures.'] New York, November 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington : Sir : We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular dated Washington, October 17, 1885. We have so far delayed our answer that we might have opportunity thoroughly to study the scope and nature of the various questions upon which you have invited an expression of our views. We most heartily approve of the substitution of specific for ad valorem duties wherever practicable. We have as yet given our chief attention to silk and silk goods em- braced in Schedule L of the present law, and we have no doubt of the feasibility of applying specific duties at least to 90 per cent, of this class of goods. We beg leave to send herewith a schedule embodying the results of our researches, which we earnestly recommeDd as a substitute for Sched- ule L of the present law. In preparing it we have gone over two years of our own importations and have sought information from several of our fellow importers who deal in lines of goods not familiar to us, and we believe that we can coufidently say to you that the application of this new schedule will neither diminish the revenue of the Government nor the protection of the home manufacturer. We would state in passing that the objection that very low-priced goods would be prohibited by the pound rate duty, can be met by the fact that these goods are very heavily charged with dye and other ma- terials, and are practically worthless to the consumer. The Government sees fit to protect the consumers against the impor- tation of spurious or adulterated tea, and in like manner the consumer w<5uld be greatly benefited by a duty which should rule out worthless goods. One of the incongruities of the present tariff is the application of a different rate of duty to goods intended for mens’ hats and ladies’ or childrens’ hats and bonnets from that levied upon similar fabrics used for other purposes. W e see no reason why the duty on silk plush for a man’s hat or a lady’s bonnet should pay any less rate of duty than the velvet of a man’s coat collar or the plush for trimming a lady’s dress. The velvet for the coat collar and the plush for trimming a dress are as much raw material to the tailor, clothier, and dress maker as the others are to the hatter and milliner. In reply to the last paragraph of your circular we would say that we are unwilling to make specific charges, but are well satisfied in our own minds that the whole range of German velvets and plushes is greatly undervalued. We deal largely in these goods, but cannot profitably import them. We place our orders for them deliverable by the manufacturers’ agents in New York in United States gold- dollar prices. Very respectfully, yours, JAMES McCKEERY & CO. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 25 Schedule recommended as a substitute of Schedule L of the present tariff law. 380. Silk partially manufactured from cocoons or waste silk and not further ad- vanced or manufactured than carded or combed silk, 50 cents per pound. 381 (a). Thrown silk, not more advanced than singles, tram, organzine, sewing silk, twist, floss in the gum, $1 per pound. (&) The same, when purifled or dyed, $1.50 per pound. (c) Spun silk yarns or threads in the grey, $1 per pound. ( d ) The same, if dyed, $1.50 per pound. (e) Noil yarns, 30 per centum ad valorem. 382. On lastings, mohair cloth, silk twist, or other manufactures of cloth woven or made in patterns of such size, shape, or form, or cut in such manner as to be fit for buttons exclusively, 10 per centum ad valorem. 383. (a) Asia ic silk goods in the piece, made wholly of the wild cocoons of Asia, in- cluding and similar to Shantung pongee and cloth made of the Tussor silk, when im- ported in the gray, 6 cents per square yard and $1 per pound; and when further ad- vanced by dyeing, staining, printing, or bleaching, 12 cents per square yard and $1 per pound. (b) All other goods in the piece, except as hereinafter provided for, composed wholly of reeled silk, or containing 50 per cencum or over, by weight, of reeled silk, and weighing not less than one ounce per square yard, 18 cents per square yard and $1.50 per pound ; when weighing less than one ounce per square yard, $4 per pound, and the square-yard duty to be omitted. (c) The same, containing less than 50 per centum, but not less than 25 per centum, by weight, of reeled silk, the remainder being* some other textile than silk, and weigh- ing not less than one ounce per square yard, 12 cents per square yard and $1 per pound, and when weighing less than one ounce per square yard, $3 per pound, and the square- yard duty to be omitted. (d) The same, containing less than 25 per centum, by weight, of reeled silk , but not less than 5 per centum, by weight, of reeled silk, the remainder being some other textile than silk, and weighing not less than one ounce per square yard, 9 cents per square yard and 75 cents per pound, and when weighing less than one ounce per square yard, $2 per pound, and the square-yard duty to be omitted. ( e ) The same, when composed wholly of spun silk, or when containing 50 per centum or over, by weight, of spun silk, the remainder being some other textile than silk, and weighing not less than one ounce per square yard, 18 cents per square yard and $1 per pound, and when weighing less than one ounce per square yard, $3.50 per pound, and the square-yard duty to be omitted. (f) The same, containing less than 50 per centum but not less than 25 per centum, by weight, of spun silk, the remainder being some other textile than silk, and weighing not less than one ounce per square yard, 12 cents per square yard and 75 cents per pound, and when weighing less than one ounce per square yard, $2.50 per pound, and the square-yard duty to be omitted. (g) The same, containing less than 25 per centum, by weight, of spun silk, but not less than 5 per centum, by weight, of spun silk, the remainder being some other textile than silk, and weighing not less than one ounce per square yard, 9 cents per square yard and 50 cents per pound, and when weighing less than one ounce per square yard, $2 per pound, and the square-yard duty to be omitted. (A) Goods, wares, and merchandise classified under paragraphs 383, a, b, c, d, e, f, and g , shall be subject to the following rates of duty in addition to the rate or rates hereinbefore provided, viz : (i) Velvet or plush, cut or uncut, or fabrics in which velvet or plush, cut or uncut, is combined with other tissue or tissues, when the pile is composed wholly or partly of spun silk, the remainder being some other textile than silk, 50 cents per pound, and when composed wholly or partly of reeled silk, $1 per pound. ( j ) Embroidery, 24 cents per square yard, which shall be levied upon the entire sur- face of piece upon which the embroidery is worked. (A) Nets, laces not made by hand, ribbons, flat braids, bindings, handkerchiefs, scarfs not made up, shawls, and all other goods, wares, and merchandise capable of square-yard measurement composed of silk, or of which silk shall be a component material, shall be classified as goods in the piece, and when the edge is scolloped or dented the measurement shall be made at the widest part. ( l ) Laces, composed wholly or in part of silk, and made by hand, $10 per pound. (m) Articles of silk, or of which silk shall be a component material of 50 per centum or over, by weight, made up wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, milliner, or manufactured, $6 per pound. (ft) The same, if less than 50 per centum, by weight, of silk, and not less than 25 per centum, by weight, of silk, $5 per pound. (o) The same, if less than 25 per centum, by weight, of silk, but not less than 5 per centum, by weight, of silk, $4 per pound, provided, however, that goods classified under 2G REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. paragraphs 383 m, n, and o, when trimmed with hand-made lace, shall he subject to a duty of $5 per pound in addit ion to the rates hereinbefore provided, and provided farther, that no article made up in whole or in part by the tailor, seamstress, milli- ner, or manufacturer, shall be admitted at a less rate of duty then would be imposed upon the materials of which it is composed, if imported in the piece. ( p ) Hosiery, gloves, undervests, drawers, and all goods made on knitting-frames, composed wholly of reeled silk or of which reeled silk shall be a component part of 50 per centum by weight or over, $3.50 per pound. ( q ) The same when composed wholly of spun silk or of which spun silk shall be a component part of 50 per centum by weight or over, $2.50 per pound. (»•) The same when composed of silk and some other textile than silk, the weight of silk being less than 50 per centum but not less than 5 per centum, $2 per pound. (s) On all goods, wares, and merchandise not otherwise provided for in this sched- ule, and not at present on the free list, made of silk or containing 5 per centum by weight of silk, 50 per cent, ad valorem. ^ t ) Goods, wares, aud merchandise containing less than 5 per centum by weight of silk shall be classified as they would be if they contained no silk. (m) Goods, wajes, and merchandise containing both reeled silk and spun silk shall be classified as if the entire weight of silk contained therein were reeled silk. Respectfully submitted. JAMES McCREERY & CO. [The same.] [New York, November 25, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington: Sir : Our further investigations have convinced us that on all reeled silk goods weighing more than eight ounces per square yard the rates we have already proposed will fairly apply, and no special provision for them need be made, but on Turcomans and like goods used for uphol- stery purposes, composed in whole or in part of spun silk or waste silk, the rates proposed in our schedule would bear heavily. Very few of these goods are now imported as they are produced more cheaply in this country, and the present 50 per cent, duty is practically prohibitive. We do not very well see any specific provision that could be made to cover these goods so as not to prohibit them that would not at the same time open the door for evasions. You will observe a provision for additional duty on goods classified under paragraphs 383 M, N, and O, of $5 per pound, in order to guard against evasion of duty on real hand-made laces. The succeeding clause is intended to guard against any other pos- sible evasion of duty by making up the goods in whole or in part. Paragraph 383 u provides against any discussion as to whether reeled- silk or spun-silk rates shall prevail, such as would arise where both were employed in nearly equal quantities. In preparing this schedule we have consulted freely with American importers and American manufacturers of the highest character and knowledge, and whilst we recommend it as being as nearly perfect as we think it can be made without an actual trial, we are prepared to ac- cept any scale of specific duties, whether higher or lower, as infinitely preferable to the vexations, uncertainties, delays, and unfair competi- tion incident to the ad valorem system. Very respectfully, JAMES McCREERY & CO. P. S. — Referring to paragraph 381 A, we find that noil yarns cost in England all the way from Is. to 10s. per pound, the average being about REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 27 4s. or $1 per pound; 30 cents per pound would therefore be a fair sub- stitute for 30 per cent, ad valorem, but as it is extremely difficult to tell where spun silks end and noil yarns begin we think it best to leave this paragraph at 30 per cent, ad valorem, otherwise we run the risk of having spun silk invoiced as noil yarns. New York, November 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir: We have the honor to hand you inclosed the translations from the German work by Dr. E. L. James referred to in our letter of the 25th instant. Very respectfully, JAMES McCREERY & CO. Extracts from Vol. I, part 3, of a collection of economical and statistical treatises , edited by Dr. John Conrad, Halle, Germany. Title, part 3, Vol. I: Studien fiber den Amerika- nischen Zolltarif, its development and its influence on the social system. Dr. E. J. James, Jena, 1877. Chapter II.— Kinds of Duties. If the imports are appraised at a low price, under the ad valorem system the cus- toms are low, and the manufacturer loses protection at just the time when he needs it most; if imports, however, are appraised at high prices, the customs rise, the manufacturer is richly protected when he could best get along without it. This is exemplified in the working of the tariff of 1816 on woolen goods. Dr. James quotes from the report of select committee on import duties, together with the minutes of evidence, ordered by House of Commons, printed August 6, 1840. Ad valorem duties very hard to execute. The value of goods can hardly be determined with even approximate certainty, and therefore evasions of duty are very easy. Declarations of value are on personal declaration, and thus there are many oppor- tunities for fraud. Importers are left to the arbitrary conduct of bureau officers, the movements of commerce are disturbed, and bribery of officials soon becomes great. Of and for themselves ad valorem" duties have the property of dangerously exagger- ating variations in price. The strictness of executing an ad valorem system is dependent on the character of the officials. There is, therefore, great danger that officials of different entry ports will compete in generous interpretations of laws in order to attract trade to their own places. Dr. James quotes from Arn6, “Tarif de Douanes,” Paris, 1876, Vol. II, p. 538 : “ There are under ad valorem systems great abuses, abuses equally compromising for the treasury, for those industries which need to profit in the protection of the tariff, and for thos« commercial houses which have no wish to be fraudulent.” Page 535, id., Arn6 says: “We understood a representative in high position in the Italian Government to es- timate at 50 per cent, of the amount of duties the loss inflicted on the treasury of the Peninsula by false declaration of value.” Speaking of the possibility of preventing too low valuation by means of consular certificates, Arn6 farther says : “ Unfortunately this security is entirely illusory. The maires or the consuls, even if they should attempt to verify the invoices (and they would find this exceedingly difficult), are in no position to govern the prices; nor can they prevent agents from misusing their certificates by a substitution of packages. “In reality they limit themselves to confirming the authenticity of this or that sig- nature, without being able to correct or indicate in their visa the inaccurate declara' tions. P. 41. — The most important objection against ad valorem system is that this system necessarily exposes commerce to the will of officials. This is particularly important 28 EEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASUEY. lor German affairs. However little the German Empire has to fear from bribery of its officials or from careless administration, the damages for legitimate trade are enor- mous which would arise from so great a concentration of irresponsible power in the hands of officials. The generally reckless bearing of the German bureaucracy toward the public would only increase this danger. To leave discretion in such matters to officials is to introduce into trade an entirely new and indeterminable factor. The storms of the sea are subject to a calculation of probability, but the whims and caprices of Government officials defy all attempts to forecast them. This uncertainty is worst of all for the small dealer. When he comes in conflict with the bureau, he has neither capital nor time to carry on a contest. He must at once come to an un- derstanding with the bureau or go under. And even then very large dealers cannot take advantage of favorable occasions, at leas^not in full measure, for the customs must in such system be regulated by the actual market price ; and if a dealer has bought a quantity of goods at special ad- vantage he must still pay just as high a tariff as if he had bought the goods at the market price, and he is thus robbed of a part of his profit. Thus the foundations of all healthy trade are perpetually disturbed. P. 42. — Specific duties are easily collecfed and offer few opportunities for fraud. They necessitate less technical knowledge in the officials and are therefore much more cheaply administered and are more productive. They secure to trade a greater certainty in its calculations, freedom in its transac- tions, and do not exaggerate, in anywise, variations in price. P. 46. — It is maintained by many that specific duties can be so graded as to substi- tute the ad valorem system. We are of the opinion that where this is the case specific duties are to be preferred to ad valorem duties. P. 48. — Answers from French boards of trade and chambers of commerce to French ministry as to their preference for specific or ad valorem duties. Of these answered : For specific duties, twenty-nine boards of trade and nine chambers of commerce. For ad valorem duties, nine boards of trade and three chambers of commerce. The others did not decide absolutely ; the majority incline to specific duties as best adapted to avoid deception, evasion, disputes over customs red tape; but they add that ad valorem duties should be retained when no just relation can be established between the weight or measure and the worth of the goods. [Hardt &Lindgens, silks. 1 New York, November 25, 1885. The undersigned having made a careful examination of the schedule relating to duties on -silks and silk goods prepared by Messrs. James McCreery & Co., of New York, hereby indorses the same, and earnestly recommends it as a substitute for the present ad valorem duties. The proposed schedule will not increase the protection at present enjoyed by the home producer, and if under its classification such fab- rics are excluded which are excessively adulterated in their manufact- ure, our commerce will be benefited thereby and the importation of honestly-made goods encouraged. The proposed schedule will be beneficial alike to the American im- porter and to the American manufacturer. OSCAR SEEBASS. [ Logan Silk Mills, silk goods.'] Auburn, N. Y., November 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury: Sir: We have examined with care the schedule relating to duties on silks and silk goods prepared by Messrs. James McCreery & Co., of REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 29 New York. The proposed schedule will not increase the protection now enjoyed by American manufacturers, but will benefit our commerce by excluding fabrics that are excessively adulterated in their manu- facture, and encourage the importation of honestly made goods. We believe this schedule to be as nearly perfect as is possible to be made, and most earnestly wish for its adoption by Congress. Eespectfully, LOGAN SILK MILLS, Auburn , N. Y. [William F. Read, sillcs, gloves, tfc. ] Philadelphia, October 21, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington : Sir : As I have been much interested in all the previous efforts to correct the evil of fraudulent undervaluation of invoices, I take pleas- ure in replying to your request of July 17. That tfye Treasury has suffered to the extent of millions per annum, that no degree of intelligent examination is capable of preventing it absolutely, and that there is but one safe and wholesome remedy, I think has become apparent to most of those who have familiarized themselves with the subject. One of the worst features is, that our own citizens have been driven out of the business of importing foreign merchandise to make room for aliens, innocent of conscientious scruples, who, although of reputable commercial standing otherwise, look upon it as no lack of honesty to evade the law, no perjury to make false affidavits, and no theft to realize their own profits or commissions and those of their correspondents through duties saved by fraudulently undervalued invoices. In theory, levying a duty by the assessment of a percentage of value is doubtless the fairest and most comprehensive of all modes ; but it presupposes a high order of general honesty on the part of importers, or the employment of expert knowledge of many kinds of merchandise on the part of poorly-paid examiners for the detection of fraud, should such high-toned morality be found wanting. Practice and theory in this are very wide apart. The scrupulous have been driven out by the unscrupulous, leaving the Treasury Department to battle alone with the latter, banded together, in a measure, to sustain the only system by which they can exist. I am, and have been for years, strongly in favor of specific duties wherever practicable, and in revising or remodeling the tariff would lay down the fixed principle — That everything capable of being counted, weighed, or measured should pay duty on quantity. In no case should any rate of duty higher than 16 per cent, ad valorem be levied, where the imposition of an ad valorem rate should be deemed advisable or necessary. My reason for naming this as the maximum rate is, that it would render it imjiossible to undervalue an invoice sufficiently to realize profit enough to cover the risk and afford the margin required to give the importer an advantage in the market. An undervaluation of 50 per cent, (which would be extremely dan- gerous) would afford but 8 per cent., a fairly liberal commission for the 30 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. importer, but nothing for the fellow-conspirator abroad, and one of 25 per cent, but 4 per cent., which would not yield profit enough or advan- tage enough over the market in general to make it worth while on the part of either to carr> on the practice. The ultimate result would be distribution instead of centralization — the multiplication of importers all over the country, as it should be, and not the concentration of them in a few large Eastern and Western cities. The foreign manufacturer would then have a foreign price in the currency of the place of production, and not quote so many dollars or cents per yard or per pound delivered in the United States by his American agent, as is now the practice to some extent. In kid gloves and piece silk goods a specific duty is imperatively necessary, and no time should be lost in making the change on these articles. Should a specific rate pure and simple be found impracticable, then if the rate be mixed, the ad valorem portion of it should not exceed 16 per cent., for the reasons given. At least $3 per pound could be safely levied on piece silks, and the tendency would be to give the consumer a very much more durable article, as many of these goods now coming to this country are adul- terated by loading and swelling the thread from 200 to 300 per cent. A line as to weight could be drawn ; all under a certain weight per square yard to be subject to a square yard duty. This would apply to the very thin light fabrics made for lining and other purposes. It is rather unfortunate that all raw materials cannot be placed on the free list, and that it is deemed necessary to levy duty on some of them. It seems inexplicable that a country like this, with every variety of climate, soil, and configuration, freely watered, and abounding with the cheapest food, should require a duty on animal products, but it has been considered essential, particularly on wool. I cannot see, however, why it should be applied to the hair of the alpaca, llama, vicuna, and Cashmere goat, or like animals, which are needed by our manufacturers, and are not grown in this country ; be- sides, camel’s hair is admitted free, and the three Peruvian animals are closely allied to it and belong to the same family. It might be urged that they would compete with our home-grown wools and lessen their consumption, but they produce entirely different results iu a fabric, and would not do so more then than now. It is even questionable whether the admission of free wool would not equalize the markets and give our farmer as good a price as he now gets. At present the duty on fine wools of 10 and 12 cents per pound is a serious obstacle to growth in woolen goods and their exportation abroad, more particularly on the fiue merino, Saxony, and Botany wools, which often lose 60 per cent, of their weight in scouring. To illustrate : Botany wool, costing in London 14^.=28 cents per pound ; shrinkage in scouring, 60 per cent, making it cost 70 cents per pound. Botany wool, costing 28 cents landed iu Philadelphia, 10 cents duty and exchange=40 cents per pound ; shrinkage in scouring, 60 percent., cent., making it cost $1 per pound. This, I think, will show that the duty of 10 cents per pound has increased to 30 cents, or, rather, that the manufacturer has j)aid 20 cents per pound duty on grease, dirt, dung, sand, burrs, &c., which have disappeared in the soap and water. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 31 Starting with his clean, scoured wool at 42 per cent, higher than the foreigner, and adding to it his labor at double the rate, by the time the domes! ic spinner gets it into yarn ready for the weaver it is handi- capped to the tune of 60 per cent, at least. To illustrate this : 64’s, single worsted yarn, made of the lower sort of fine Botany wool, is sold to close buyers in England at 3s. 4CClftCSl dw'ocd ri o ».-i ift^HHoncew»o | 1 31.6 1 18. 1 1 16. 5 1 18.3 1 03 1 29.4 1 3!) .1 48. 6 0 88.4 1 01. 1 00 0 82. 1 0 79.5 •on[i?A 9qj jo *^aoo J9j * ic i CC 05 CC 1ft Ift n ic O W*0 ?> S X ^ IJ ?l C§ M M 00 SS f-H &%%%%% : (M N M C ftl Lft iO t> • CC l> ’ , , J •spBO.iqj O00‘l Jad — jo QJBJ 9qj jb spB9jqj .iad ^jnd 1"^”" 1 Value. f C^r-I ad aC cf siilligil ; co coco -^r co no co o’ o’ • Si o-» r6 jS fflOCf- SXl- aTa? ■ ?3^ L flU : s , X. C C, • = W -1! _ asm 5^.13 tt i§ E g §~ t i = = ££<§£ III III E’S c - I !1 l |2 21i; 1'5 2 Jl,s i«r s|E* i * *. CHS; REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 43 00 iftOi 00^t>CD00 t-I> §8£5 gg ££$&&* ooo ooooo oo oooooo oi>cq t^oooo 0010 r co o in t- H®cc®t- $£8£&g!5 «fco co ooo H.fj *§ § 1 HO m-§2 fed CQ q ■gjfS 28 Mpa. •I a ... II- § Uli nr II rrj 50 l*o« a^Sfl .§ d 03 ^ -*• H o' 44 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. •ontBA aqj jo quoa J9d ss aqcai o; ‘pnnod qsqg •ug; auo aod ‘fc\iB[[op ui ‘Ajna 0 55.5 0 42.4 0 47.2 •anpBA eqj jo qua a .ia,j 19.0 20.5 CO d Total. 3 45 3 18 Value. rH lO CO CO •epnaaqi 000‘I-I9fl — jo ojbj oqj jb epeajqj jad Ajn 1 64 1 83 •punod qsqSug; euo jad — joa^u.i aqj JB jqgiaM. jad Ajti(j Cents. 20 20 •ejuaa |6I jo ojtfJ q« ‘jau punod qsijgug; auo jad anpA 00 05 05 O ‘SJU9D ^6t JO 9JBJ x ;b ‘j9u spanA ooi -iad anpA 18 18 15 54 qou ‘epauA ooi ^ad cup? a Francs. 94. 20 80. 50 •(999ld eqi jo qjptM.) djBAv aqj uj epBOjqx 5, 415 4. 058 •spacA ooi jad epnnod qsqgug; nt jqgpM L 1 8, 200 9, 170 >5 £ Inches. 18 18 Article and quality. Quadrill6, $ soie coul. II Merveilleux, t soie coul. G J G s t S t> < 1 0 ; i ► i §1 Q <8 O £ § 1 .xj ^ 'S’O 1 ••§£ &g»l ©•3 r 2'*- .. rt eg o W,S © O 0 ®53-h gg©- ® £ -+3 ^g<2 ° ffl'O 1.0 «g -C rs 7 .2 ® s.2 O^T P,M tj - j-s a o'? 5 W 106 98 93 80 161 137 127 105 120 6-4 TARLATANS. No. 1 If 2 50 3. 55 6. 25 176 No. 2 50 4. 06 6. 25 153 No. 3 2i II 50 4. 56 6. 25 137 No. 4 50 5.07 6. 25 123 No. 5 50 5.58 6. 25 112 No. 6 3 50 6. 09 6. 25 102 No. 7 3i 3* 3f 4 50 6. 60 6.25 94 No. 8 50 7. 10 6.25 88 No. 9 50 7.61 6. 25 82 No. 10 8. 12 6.25 77 Avftragft duty 114 The samples mentioned in the above communications of Healv & Co. will be separately transmitted to Congress. [Sherman, Cecil & Co., manufactures of cotton.'] New York, November 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington : Dear Sir : We understand that there is to be some effort made at the next session of Congress to modify the present tariff; and in the in- terest of the poor consumers, whose interests have been very much ignored by the advocates of protection to our u infant industries,” we beg to submit to you samples of a few goods imported by us, upon which the present tariff bears very heavily, and, we think, unjustly. These samples, you will observe, represent low qualities of goods, such as are used by the poorer classes, and it seems to be a great wrong that they should be obliged to pay a duty of from 75 per cent, to 200 per cent., while the wealthier classes who use the finer qualities of the same goods pay only about 40 per cent. We think it would be almost impossible to frame a tariff with specific duties that would bear equally on all grades of our goods. The thing that would come the nearest to doing it would be to introduce a clause that no manufactures wholly of cotton shall pay a duty of over 25 or 30 per cent. Our goods being almost exclusively made from cotton, we leave goods made from other mate- rials-to others better qualified to give you information. Very respectfully, yours, SHERMAN, CECIL & CO. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 87 Foreign cost per yard. Cost to land. Duty per square yard. Percentage of duty. Sample No. 1 d. ■ 11 Cents. 3 4 Cents. 4 100 Sample No. 2 2 * 44 4 75 Sample No. 3 2i 4 £ 3* 4 75 Sample No. 4 11 34 86 Sample No. 5 1 2 44 208 Sample No. 6 2 4 44 94 Sample No. 7 18* 3 § 44 125 * Eighteen centimes. Note . — These samples will he transmitted separately to Congress. [The Conant Thread Company, spool cotton and yarns.] Pawtucket, R. I., October 5 ; 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury: Sir : In reply to your circular letter of 29th July, we beg to state that the present system of specifie rates of duty based upon the values of yarns adopted March 3, 1883, with specific duties only on the fully manufactured article of spool cotton thread, is as nearly equitable as could be devised, and was a reduction of 36 per cent, from the rates previously exacted. Regarding evasion of the tariff we have no knowledge or complaint to make. The commercial designations of the articles we manufacture are “ yarns 17 and “spool cotton, ’’ the latter being made from the former and samples being sent herewith. There being sharp competition between manufacturers, we are un- willing to publish the minute details called for in your question No. 2, with notes A to E, except as to the wages paid in the United States and Scotland, with which country we compete in production. Being connected with mills in both countries, I am able to furnish complete tables of wages paid operatives iu each. The table annexed embraces the great bulk of our operatives and gives as correct an idea of the difference of wages paid in the two countries as possible. The average weekly wages earned in Scotland and the United States from pay-rolls of August and September of the current year are as fol- lows: One-eighth is deducted in the third column from the actual wages earned in the United States on account of running sixty-four hours per week, the running time in Scotland being limited to fifty-six hours per week. I may here mention that after 31st December next the running time in Rhode Island will be reduced to sixty hours per week. 88 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. W eekly wages in Scotland, earned in 56 hours. W eekly wages in United States, earned in 64 hours. Estim ated weekly wages in United States for 56 hours, as in Scotland. Cop spoolers $3 64 2 55 $8 14 6 67 $7 12 5 84 Twister tenders Doffers 1 98 5 00 4 37 Keelers 3 16 8 19 7 17 Winders 2 85 8 59 7 52 Dyers 5 35 10 01 8 76 Bieachers 3 77 7 86 6 88 Mechanics 6 99* 14 50 12 69 Ticketers 2 18 4 99 4 37 Inspectors 2 62 6 81 5 96 Paper-box makers 3 28 6 48 5 67 Foreman 7 41 15 00 13 12 Skein spoolers 2 65 7 97 6 97 Gross parcelers 4 01 10 98 9 61 Togiveas correctan ideaof the comparative difference in wages paid in the two countries as possible,! divided the pay-rolls by all the operatives employed and found the average pay in Scotland to be 12s. 4 %d. ster- ling per week, which at $4.86 per pound sterling exchange equals $3.00J, while the average pay per week in the United States amounted to $7.54. When the running time is reduced to sixty hours per week, after 31st December next, the average weekly pay in the United States would amount to $7.06J, and at fifty-six hours per week (the time run in Scot- land) it would amount to $6.59§, against an actual average of all wages paid in Scotland, as above, of $3.00J. For strict equity in comparing the cost of labor in the two countries, I have reduced in the third column the weekly wages earned in the United States one-eighth, to be the exact equivalent of the amount earned in Scotland in the same number of working hours, but should remark that the operatives in Scotland are quite as efficient as in the United States, attending to as many spindles and other machinery run- ning at as high rates of speed and turning out the same quantity of goods. They are limited, however, in Scotland to 56 hours per week, and cannot earn more than $3.00J, while the American operative at present earns $7.54. I desire to draw attention, also, to the fact that bituminous coal in Scotland costs 4 s. per ton of 2,240, pounds, delivered at the furnace, slightly under $1, while anthracite coal costs over three times that price here. The coal is small in size, but is handled by the automatic stokers admirably. Gas of 25-candle power costs 3s. 9 d. sterling, about 90 cents, per 1,000 cubic feet, while here we have to pay $1.75 for the same quan- tity of only 16-candle power. The factories are built of brick, and the machinery is of the usual de- scription for manufacturing fine yarns and spool-cotton. The plant has cost over three and a half millions of dollars, and would have cost less than half that amount in Scotland. Steam power alone is used in both countries, and this item is an im- portant one, as we run 36 steam-boilers of a capacity of over 4000 horse- power. , In conclusion, I beg leave toexpress the opinion that the present rates of duties on yarns andspool-cotton do not do more than cover the addi- tional cost of the goods manufactured here, and any reduction in those REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 89 rates would have an injurious effect on the labor engaged in their pro- duction. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, JAS. COATS, President , Conant Thread Company. Note. — Samples will he transmitted separately to Congress. [From an extensive manufacturing company of Connecticut, spool cotton .] October 1, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C, : Sir: Eeferring to your circular dated July 29, 1885, requesting in- formation in regard to our industry, we respectfully beg leave to pre- sent the following answers in reply to the interrogations, as numbered : (1) Spool cotton, for both hand sewing and manufacturing or machine sewing. (2) As we make four separate qualties, and a great variety of num- bers and colors, adapted to many different uses, we have adopted apian which gives the information desired without details too prolix for this paper and not important to the Department, viz, to use a unit of one hundred as a per cent, unit of cost dividing the various elements of cost into the actual parts of this unit belonging to them. (a) Material, Long-stapled cotton, grown on southern seaboard of the United States, commercially known as sea-island cotton. Cost of raw material, 36 per cent, of whole cost. (b) Cost of labor, 45 per cent, of entire cost. Average wages paid to men $8 19 Average wages paid to girls 5 66 Herewith is shown the difference in wages paid by us and those paid for similar work in Scotland. We take the Scotch prices from pay- rolls furnished the Tariff Commission in 1882, which, we are informed, are essentially the same now : In Paisley. In United States. GIRLS. Cop. spoolers $3 40 2 25 $6 40 4 52 Twister-tenders Doffers 1 94 4 44 Iteftlftrs __ 3 52 7 46 Winders 2 80 6 18 Boxers and wrappers 3 04 6 37 Box-malcera _ _ 3 28 7 37 MEN. Dyers and hlea.ehers _ _ 5 04 8 85 Mechanics. 7 94 13 17 Foremen 7 41 15 20 The whole average of men and women employed in Scotland is very near $3 per week, very many more women being employed than men, and the average per week paid by us is about $6.50, or more than double that paid in Scotland. 90 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (c) Operating expenses, including dye-stuffs, fuel, supplies, oil and repairs, 18 per cent, of entire cost. (d) We employ about $4,000,000 in our business, one-half being fixed capital and the other half active or working capital, and as we turn our active capital but once a year the interest charge has to be reckoned as a yearly charge on all money employed. We should say the differ- ence between this country and Europe should be put at 2 per cent. In the two years since the Tariff Commission reduced the duty from the equivalent of 22 cents on a dozen of two hundred yard spools to 14 cents on same, we have not earned 4 per cent, per annum on capital in- vested. ( e ) Salaries and clerk hire represent 1 per cent, of entire cost. (3) We have four mills, all modern, in which is invested $2,000,000, one-half in buildings and fixed machinery, and one-half in movable ma- chinery. The unit of measure for retail distribution is a spool containing 200 yards. A package containing one dozen spools is the unit for sale to the merchant. Prior to the change made in 1883 by the Tariff Commis- sion, the duty on a dozen spools of 200 yards each averaged for eighteen years the specific equivalent of 24 cents, being about one-half specific, and balance ad valorem. This duty was so favorable to the American manufacturers that the three Scotch firms who up to 1860 had made three-quarters of all the six-cord thread sold in the United States trans- ferred their manufacture for this market to this country, invested about $12,000,000 here, and became American manufacturers. As a conse- quence of this move, not over 2J per cent, of the thread used in the United States is imported on spools. As appears from list mentioned above, the wages now paid by us av- erage double those paid in Scotland for similar work. After the Tariff Commission reduced the duty we found it necessary to make a general reduction of 10 per cent, in wages. It is difficult to estimate all causes affecting business and make full account of them, but we respectfully call your attention to this important fact, viz, that if we should reckon the cost of all the thread we have sold since 1883 (the time the duty was changed) at the labor cost of Europe (saying nothing about difference in interest and other elements of cost), and reckon the actual labor cost of the same product here, the difference between the totals representing labor in Europe and labor here largely exceeds the entire profit made in the two years. As stated above this profit does not reach 4 per cent, per annum on our investment. It clearly follows that any reduction in duty involves lower wages. The price of a spool of thread containing 200 yards was, to prior 1860, 5 cents, and has never been less. This is the present price, al- though the quality and value has been greatly raised, and we estimate thread of old quality could be sold at 3 cents. If the entire duty at present imposed should be removed the equivalent reduction in the re- tail price of thread would be 1 cent per spool, or a reduction from 5 cents per spool to 4 cents, 20 per cent., a difference in price to the consumer not excessive when compared with other articles of merchandise, and with the great difference of wages here and in Europe. I have the honor to remain, with great respect, your obedient servant, President and Treasurer . REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 91 [From the same.] October 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 1). C. : Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of October 10, asking what rates of duty, in our opinion, should be im- posed on imported articles similar to those produced by us. In reply we would respectfully submit the following statement : The duty on spool cotton, before the act of 1883, was as follows : On one dozen of spools, containing not over one hundred yards, 6 cents and 30 per cent, ad valorem. On each one hundred yards additional, or fraction of one hundred yards, 6 cents, and 35 per cent, ad valorem. As standard spool-cotton is invariably wound two hundred yards on a spool, the duty on a dozen spools, just prior to the act of 1883, was equivalent to 21.94 per dozen. This duty was reduced by the Tariff Commission to 7 cents on a dozen spools containing one hundred yards, and 7 cents for each additional one hundred yards or fraction of the same. This duty being 14 cents on a dozen (as it would be imported), as against about 22 cents before the act of 1883, is a reduction of a little over 36 per cent. The duty which would affect the balance of goods produced by us is that on cotton yarns. Prior to 1883 this stood as follows : Under 40 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem. Over 40 cents and under 60 cents per pound, 20 cents and 20 per cent, ad valorem. Over 60 cents and under 80 cents per pound, 30 cents and 20 percent, ad valorem. Over 80 cents per pound, 40 cents and 20 per cent, ad valorem. These rates were reduced by the Tariff Commission to the following: Under 25 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound. Over 25 cents and under 40 cents per pound, 15 cents per pound. Over 40 cents and under 50 cents per pound, 20 cents per pound. Over 50 cents and under 60 cents per pound, 25 cents per pound. Over 60 cents and under 70 cents per pound, 33 cents per pound. Over 70 cents and under 80 cents per pound, 38 cents per pound. Over 80 cents and under 100 cents per pound, 48 cents per pound. Over 100 cents, 50 per cent, ad valorem. This reduction averages about 25 per cent, of the former duty. These reductions were made by a commission, in part composed and largely controlled by representatives of great associations engaged in the pro- ductive industries of the United States, and the spool-cotton and fine cotton yarn interests were not influential with this commission. We then thought, and still think, that the tariff on our product was dispro- portionately reduced in order to aid the Tariff Commission in securing the average reduction of 20 per cent, at which they aimed. We have now accommodated our business to this reduction, in part by reduction of wages and in part by loss of profit ; and we desire no increase of duty, but only that present duties may remain in force. With great respect, I have the honor to remain, Very respectfully, your obedient servant, President and Treasurer. 92 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The Hadley Company, cotton yarns and threads . ] Boston, October 9, 1885. Daniel Manning, Esq., Secretary , Treasury Department , Washington : Sir: At the request of Mr. A. T. Lyman, our treasurer, who is now abroad, we send you a copy of a circular framed to show the possible consequence to us, and other spinners of fine cotton yarns and threads, of any such reduction on duties as was proposed by the Morrison bill. If you have not seen it,' it may be of service in considering the proposed change in method of levying duties. After it was written, prices fell steadily, and we have been doing business at a loss ; our yarn business showing a loss of about 5 per cent, for 1884, no account having been taken since. Home competition on coarse numbers and foreign competition on fine numbers, the cost of which is mostly labor, having brought about this result. You can therefore readily see that any further reduction on duties would be likely to lead to a closing of our mill, and throw the seven hundred or more people we employ out of work, in the only business they have been trained to get a living in, and which has enabled them to lay by a good deal more money in the Holyoke Savings Bank than we have made in employing them. Yours, respectfully, HADLEY COMPANY, By JOHN E. LOCKETT, Treasurer pro. tern. To the honorable Committee on Ways and Means, Mouse of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: The undersigned, manufacturers of fine cotton yarns in the United States, do hereby protest against any reduction by Congress of the duty now imposed upon “cotton-thread yarn, warps, or warp yarn, &c.,” in Schedule I, Cotton and Cotton Goods, paragraph 732, act of March 3, 1883. That law abolished the compound duty, the duty on packing charges and expenses, and doubled the classification of values imposed by the t ariff of 1867. It effected an actual reduction from former rates on the fine cotton yarns im- ported in competition with those of domestic manufacture, varying from 20 to 35 per cent., as will be seen by the following table, which may be depended upon for ac- uracy : Table showing the reduction of duty effected by the tariff act of March'S, 1883. ■Prt a p.0 w>7® Duty, tariff of 1867. Duty, tariff t>f 1883. © n 11 Rate. Amount. Rate. 1 Amount. O * 25 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem Cents. 15 Cents. 10 Cents. 10 33. 33 40 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem 18 15 15 16. 67 50 20 cents per pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem 30 20 20 33/33 60 20 cents per pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem 32 25 25 21.87 70 30 cents per pound and 2 ) per cent, ad valorem 44 33 33 25. 00 80 30 cents per pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem 46 38 38 17. 39 $1 00 40 cents per pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem 60 48 48 20. 00 The duty formerly paid on cases and packages is not included in above calculation. Estimating such charges at 5 per cent, and the duty upon them at 20 per cent., it would increase the reduction of duty on the above from 1.10 to 1.80 per cent. This reduction was a real and substantial one, greater than we believed to be equitable, and more than our industry could afford to have made. In consequence REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 93 of it we were compejled to accept lower prices for our yarns to prevent the importa- tion of foreign competing yarns, and our business has been, and now is, unremunera- tive. To have another reduction follow so soon upon the large one already made would be very disastrous to us, especially in view of the depressed condition of general business at this time, with which our industry«sympathizes in common with others. Any reduction of this duty on foreign yarns would compel a further reduction in the prices of competing domestic yarns, and this would necessitate manufacturing at a loss, or the cutting down of the wages of work people, or the discontinuance of the manufacture. We do most earnestly protest against the application of a horizontal reduction to our industry. Some of us are making yarns so tine that a single strand 66.82 miles long weighs only 1 pound, and necessarily the amount of labor involved in the manu- facture of such is in proportion to its fineness. The following table gives the price of No. 40 2-ply warp yarn during the last fifteen years : Years. Per pound. Years. Per pound. 1869 Gents. 72* 65 60 70 60 50 46 45 1877 , Gents. 42* 41 35 47* 44 40 34 30 1870 1878 ' . 1871 1879 1872 1880 1873 1881 1874 1882 1875 1883 1876. . 1884 To us and those whom we employ the reduction proposed by the bill now before you would be ruinous. [The same.] November 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : In reply to your letter of October 13, addressed to Mr. John E. Lockett, treasurer pro tempore of the Hadley Company, I would say that while it is true that the existing tariff affords less protection against importations of fine yarns than against coarse ones, I am decidedly of the opinion, under existing circumstances, that there should be no ad- vance in the rates of duty on cotton yarns, and that no change in rates is, on the whole, to be recommended. The duties on cotton yarns, though nominally specific, are practically, to a large extent, ad valorem, being based on foreign values; but though there is serious objection to this system, the practical difficulties in this case are not, perhaps, very serious, and they are not easy to obviate. It will readily be seen that if a yarn is worth really 81 cents per pound some way would often be found to have the price made 80 cents, to save the additional 10 cents duty, and it would be practically impossible even for experts to say whether a certain yarn were worth 80 cents, or 80J cents, or 81 cents, or what the price really paid was. It would be fairer and better if there were many more rates, at least as concerns the values above 40 cents or 50 cents. For really low num- bers 10 cents is ample protection, but thefe are many yarns of a foreign value not exceeding 40 cents that would cause serious additional com- petition if the duty were under 15 cents, and, for protection, I think there should be no reduction in the duty on any yarns not exceeding 40 cents in foreign value. I do not see any objection to the increase in the number of rates on the yarns of higher cost, though I think the proper 94 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. way to levy a duty on cotton yarns is to base it on thp fineness, i. e ., on the u number v of the single yarn.* This plan was proposed many years ago, and is, I think, that adopted in the French tariff It was in fact embodied in one of our tariff act£ (act of March 3, 1865, fourth paragraph of first section), but was held, I believe, to be an accident or error, and overruled as impossible of application. I see no reason for this view of the case, however, as the yarns can readily be measured and weighed and the size or number ascertained with comparatively little difficulty. But if no change of this sort is to be made, and no addition to the classification or number of rates, I think the duties should remain as they are. There was a real and large reduction of duty on cotton yarns made by the tariff act of 1883, and cotton yarns certainly should not be subjected to further reduction at present, unless a radical change in system is adopted by Congress, as it would be treating this branch of industry unfairly and not like others. But I cannot think that an advance in rates would be of permanent benefit to the country or even to the yarn- spinners. If an advance tended to reduce importations for the time, it would certainly lead to an increased production at home, and probably, to an undue extent, and especially in yarns of such fineness as cannot be made here except at very much higher cost than in Europe, owing to the high cost of plant, the very large proportion of wages in the cost of very fine yarns, and the small weight of yarn produced from the ma- chinery. It is not likely that any advance in duty would be long main- tained, and an advance and subsequent reduction would do more harm than the retention of present rates. Yours, respectfully, ARTHUB T. LYMAN, Treasurer of Hadley Company. [John T. Bailey & Co., burlaps.'] Philadelphia, July 27, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir: Your circular of 24th duly received, and has our careful consideration. Burlaps are the only merchandise we import subject to ad valorem duties. These are cloths made from jute, a product of Hindostan, and is a cheap, heavy cloth, tolerably durable if kept dry, and largely used for bags, baling, upholstering, and other purposes where a cheap, heavy cloth is desirable. The standard goods are 40 inches wide, and are graded by weight, the difference of weight being the half-ounce, as 8 ounces, 8J ounces, 9 ounces, 9J ounces, &c. The prices of the several grades are regulated by the price of 10J ounces. The invoices from Dundee, Scotland (which is the chief center of supply for the Atlantic States), makes a difference generally of one-twelfth of a penny per half ounce; this, with the present duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem and the freight, makes nearly a quarter of a cent, so the difference in prices of the several grades in the Atlantic * This does not wholly cover the case, as there are various qualities aud costs, differ- ing greatly for the same size, but it hardly seems necessary to add an ad valorem rate to meet this point. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 95 States is one-fourth cent per half ounce. The chief source of supply for the Pacific States is Calcutta. The invoices from Calcutta make a differ- ence of 116 of a penny between the several grades ; this makes about one-sixth of a cent in the prices of the several grades in the Pacific States. The Calcutta burlaps are not so uniform nor so desirable as the Dun- dee, although we understand that the manufacturers there are improv- ing the quality of their goods. Some burlaps are made in Germany, but so far as we know none are imported into the United States. These goods being cheap and bulky offer very little inducement to undervaluation. We have had business relations in a greater or less degree for the last twenty-five years with all the leading importers engaged in this trade, and we have no knowledge of a single instance of undervaluation, and we do not see that a change from ad valorem duties to specific will simplify in any way our business with the custom-house. The other merchandise we import is subject to specific duties, namely, hemp and tow, and, of course, need no elucidation. Yours, truly, JOHN T. BAILEY & CO. Per MILLS. [The Chelsea Jute-Mills, burlaps.'] New York, October 5, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury , Washington: My Dear Sir: We would submit the following statement relative to the jute trade of the United States, in reply to the circular issued by your Department : Jute and jute-butts are the products of the jute-plant, which is grown almost exclusively in India. Several attempts have been made to pro- duce it in this country, but owing to the high cost of its cultivation and preparation for market it has been found to be impracticable, and the idea has been abandoned. The bottom of the plant, or stubble, is the jute-butt of commerce, and is used only in the manufacture of gunny-cloth for baling cotton and as paper-stock, while the upper part, or fiber, called jute, is spun into yarn and woven into various fabrics, which are sold under the names of burlaps, oil cloths, canvas, &c. The great bulk of jute goods imported into this country (about 80 per cent.) is called burlaps, an uncolored jute cloth, generally 40 inches in width, and of various weights. It is made into coverings and bags, and, on account of its cheapness, has become the most important medium for the transportation of agricultural products. Burlaps are sold entirely by weight — that is, they are always quoted as 10-ounce, lOJ-ounce, &c., signifying the weight of a yard 40 inches in width. In the main the price varies one-quarter cent for each half ounce, the heavier goods bringing the higher prices. This little shade of difference in weight is oftentimes the manufact- urer’s only profit, so that it becomes a matter of prime importance, not only with Government, if it would collect full duties, but to all Amer- ican jute-mills, that duties be paid on actual weights and goods be not entered under false certificates showing them to be one ounce or even one-half ounce lighter than they really are. 96 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. If your Department will compare the samples accompanying this let- ter and marked with their various weights, it will be evident that the difference between 10 and 10J ounce burlaps* or between any two sam- ples showing a variation of one-half or one ounce, cannot be detected by the eye. As a matter of fact, it is impossible for the manufacturer him- self to distinguish the difference of an ounce without most careful in- spection of large pieces. Difficult as it is to decide between burlaps of the same make and fin- ish, it becomes doubly so when there is a variation in the calendering or dressing of the goods. In the present condition of the tariff and inspection, we therefore be- lieve it is virtually impossible to collect the proper duties, and that it is an easy matter to enter false invoices without fear of detection. Such being the present state of the tariff and its enforcement, the natural inquiry is, What is the remedy? We do not believe one can be found or applied so long as there remains an ad valorem duty on jute goods. We would, therefore, suggest, as the only sure euforcement of the customs laws and for sustaining and upbuilding this industry, a specific duty of 2J mills per ounce on all burlaps 60 inches in width and under and of 3 mills per ounce on all burlaps over 60 inches in width imported into the United States. (See Schedule A.) Such a duty will avoid all danger of false invoices and secure accu- rate appraisement, for then the only requisite will be to get the exact weight of each bale and apply the specific duty. Many of the objections raised in the case of burlaps exist in regard to yarn. Jute yarns are denominated 8, 10, or 12 pounds, &c., accord- ing to the number of pounds required to produce a given length ; hence 8-pound yarn is finer than 10-pound, &c. The cost and price increase as the yarn becomes finer, but it is difficult to distinguish between 8 and 9, or 9 and 10 pound yarns, and yet this difference is the essential eco- nomical factor in its manufacture and sale. We would v therefore, recommend a specific duty of 2 mills per ounce as the only sure means of a full and fair enforcement of the tariff laws. The price of burlaps in Great Britain to-day is far below the cost of production, and it is a well-known fact that her mills are running and have been running for a long time at a serious loss, so that the present duty is no fair criterion by which to judge the comparative cost of pro- duction between the two countries. The Schedule A, hereto attached, which shows the actual difference between the cost of labor and capital in United States and Great Britain, is the only reliable basis, because it remains fixed during the fluctua- tion of the market. As a verification of our statement we would call your attention to the fact that burlaps have been double their present price within the past five years. America consumes more jute goods than any country in the world, and yet makes but one forty second of the production of Great Britain and her provinces, and but one-sixteenth of that of a single Scotch city. This great industry (the jute crop of the world is half that of cotton) is so restricted in the United States that all the manufactories here are not sufficient to supply a single State with its cheapest and most econom- ical fabric. We believe the circular of your Department is a step in the right di- rection and tends to correct this unfortunate condition of affairs, the cause of which is apparent to every one who studies our customs laws. Very respectfully, WM. LYALL, Treas. REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 97 Schedule A. Weekly wages in jute-mills. Preparers for spinners : Lads and boys Women Spinners : Women Lads and boys Girls Twisters (women) Keelers : Women Lads and boys Girls Overlookers (men) Laborers (men) Winders (women) Warpers (women) Beamers (men) Weavers: Women Girls . . , Overseers (men) Tenters (men) Total Great United Britain. ; States. $1 75 $4 50 1 97 4 95 2 29 6 75 1 63 4 95 1 63 3 75 2 52 4 50 2 62 6 75 1 75 4 75 1 20 3 60 5 79 16 20 3 39 9 00 2 57 5 40 2 84 6 30 4 78 12 15 2 52 5 85 j 1 75 4 50 i 5 34 16 20 ! 5 82 13 50 51 57 132 25 Ratio 2 to 5. The wages in Calcutta (one of the great centers for the manufactnring of burlaps) are about one-half those of England. Comparative cost of labor and capital for making one pound of burlaps in the United States and Great Britain. Labor Mill supplies Insurance and interest, $400,000 plant. 6 per cent, in United States, 3 per cent, in Great Britain ; plant in Great Britain costing two-thirds same plant in United States Salaries and office expenses Interest on working capital, $100,000 Ailowance for wear of machinery and deterioration of plant as above, 5 per cent Duty on raw material, 20 per cent United States. Great, Britain. Differ- ence. $2 71 $1 08 $1 63 l 14 76 38 77 26 61 1 64 30 34 20 10 10 . 65 42 23 60 60 6 71 2. 92 3 79 A duty of 2^ mills per ounce on burlaps 60 inches in width and under, and 3 mills per ounce ou burlaps, oil-cloths, canvas, &c., over 60 inches in width, is about the actual difference between the cost of labor and capital in Great Britain and the United States. Please notice the duty of 20 per cent, on the raw material, which is not only bur- densome, but unwise, since jute does not enter into competition with any fiber grown in America. It should be placed on the free list. Note. — Samples will be transmitted separately to Congress. S. Ex. 72 7 98 EEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASUEY. [Chelsea Jnte Mills, burlaps. 1 New, York, October 22, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : Your esteemed favor of the 9th instant, relative to the jute industry, was duly received and carefully considered. We are pleased to note your evident interest in this important branch of textile manufacturing, and believe your efforts can and will aid in its establishment in our own country. We shall try and answer your inquires as they occur in your letter. More than four-fifths of the jute goods imported into the United States are burlaps, and we shall, therefore, confine our attention mainly to this class of fabrics. Burlaps are used chiefly for bags and coverings. The most common varieties weigh from 8 ounces to 12 ounces for one yard of 40 inches in width. For the past two years burlaps have been selling in the American market below the cost of production. (It should be borne in mind while considering this question that Dundee and Calcutta are the two great centers of this industry.) The present demoralization of prices has been due in the main to two causes, which we will recite somewhat in detail. Until recent years jute manufactories were prosperous in Great Britain, and mills multiplied rapidly in and about Dundee. The prosperity of Dundee induced Scotch capitalists to build mills in Calcutta, near the jute fields of .India, where the cost of labor and freight might be reduced to a minimum. These corporations were successful for a time, but the profits of the first few led to the formation of many more, until to-day cheap Indian labor not only finds no remuneration, but has destroyed the jute busi- ness of Dundee. This unfortunate competition has most effected burlaps, because the mills of Calcutta do not spin yarn for market, and it has gone so far that finished woven goods are selling at about the same price as yarns, while the labor in their manufacture is far greater. Too many Scotch and Indian mills have reduced the price to a lower figure than was ever known in the history of the trade, and far below cost of production, consequently no intelligent comparison of duties at present prices can be made. Any such figures would be misleading and unfair, and would have to be constantly modified in order to keep up with the fluctuation of the market. We are assured that the com- parative cost of labor and capital, and not the selling price, should be the only standard of comparison. The duty now levied was established in 1874, and any comparison of specific with ad valorem duties should be made on prices at that time, in order to show the protection contemplated by Congress. We do not believe in such a basis even, but maintain that the only fair, economical factors to be considered, if the Government would establish this indus- try in America, are the differences between theco^t of capital and labor in the United States and Great Britain. It was for this reason that we set before you, in our former communication upon this subject, a detailed comparison of these two elements, to which we would again call your careful attention. We suggested a specific duty of 2J mills per ounce on all burlaps un- der 60 inches in width, on the supposition that the duty upon the raw material would be retained; but if that be removed, a duty of 2 mills per REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 99 ounce would cover the comparative cost of labor and capital in United States and Great Britain. We also suggest, for the reasons above st ated, a duty of 2J instead of 3 mills per ounce on all burlaps over 00 inches wide. The necessity of placing a higher duty on wide burlaps than on nar- row is because its limited sale and increased cost require it. It needs a better loom and more skilled labor. Its enhanced cost is recognized by all manufacturers as well as by the preseut discrimina- tion of 10 per cent, in its favor under the existing tariff. It is used almost exclusively for oil cloth foundation, and is therefore often called “oil-cloth canvas,” which varies in width from 2 to 8 yards. We would say, in answer to your inquiry, that we do not make gunny cloth, but being familiar with its manufacture will refer briefly to it. It is made entirely from jute butts, the lower and cheaper end of the jute plant, and contains no jute proper. It weighs from 2 to 2£ pounds per yard of 45 inches in width. (We send herewith samples of jute, jute butts, and gunny cloth.) The duty upon gunny cloth is specific, 1£ cents and 2 cents per pound, or 3 to 5 cents per yard, according to quality. The duty upon jute butts is $5 per ton, or 0.22 cent per pound ; on the medium grades of jute it averages, at 20 per cent., from 0.50 to 0.80 cent per pound. That is, the manufacturer of gunny cloth has more aid from the Government on raw material and on the cloth (for the labor expended) than the maker of burlaps. A specific duty has so firmly established the gunny cloth industry in America that we now supply all the wants of our own country with this cheap but necessary fabric. Jute has never been grown in the United States except as a matter of experiment, when its cost was louud so great as to render its cultivation impracticable, and the idea has been abandoned. It may be well to call your attention to the proportion of labor ex- panded upon jute fabrics in comparison with that upon silk, cotton, or woolen. It is a very easy error to fall into, to think that burlaps, worth nominally only 9 cents to lu cents per pound, should not have so large a duty as the more costly fabrics ; but when you consider the percentage of labor expended upon the various textile materials in proportion to their value, it will plainly appear that it is actually greater in jute goods than any other named. That is a jute cloth or burlaps costing 10 cents per pound will have 65 per cent, of that cost in labor, while that in cottons, woolens, and silks is much less than 50 per cent., because the raw material used in their manufacture bears a larger proportion of their cost. The following figures show the importation of burlaps into the United States, duty paid, in the years mentioned (they include bagging, which is mainly a kind of burlaps): Year ending June 30, 1881 $7, 390, 897 Year ending June 30, 1883 8,209,010 Year ending June 30, 1882 6, 953, 931 There are two small mills in California where burlaps have been made, but they have both failed financially, and we do not know that they are in operation today. There are only two raids of any size or perma- nence in this country that produce burlaps, and they do not annually make together over $350,000 worth of goods — not 5 per ceut. of our consumption. Neither of these mills produces a yard of the standard 40-iuch fabric, which is the great staple of the trade, nor could they af- 100 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ford to turn a single loom upon it. Both make specialties that are re- moved to a certain extent from foreign competition on account of t*he limited demand for them. Burlaps are almost as essential a factor in the moving of agricultural products as the plow is in their cultivation. Every farmer and produce merchant must have his cheap jute sacks; they form an element in the marketing of our crops, but to-day Great Britain and her provinces supply all our wants except to an extent that is almost infinitesimal. Should English ports be blockaded to-morrow our supply would be cut off, and the result would be felt by every farmer in the land. We have seen that the manufacturing of gunny-cloth has been en- couraged by the Government till to day domestic mills satisfy all our demands. Silk, woolen, and cotton manufactories have been estab- lished, and have become independent; but the great textile material that furnishes the cheapest and most necessary of all carrying medi- ums, and does not compete with other fabrics any more than cotton does with wool, but has an independent sphere of usefulness, this has been given to foreign capital and foreign labor, while thousands of our people and millions of dollars are waiting to establish it here if the Government will but give them an opportunity to do so. Allow us to refer you again to our communication of the 5th instant, which suggested a specific duty per ounce on burlaps and yarns (1) because it is the only way to prevent undervaluation ; (2) because such a duty equitably determined lays the only substantial and sure foundation upon which to rest the walls of future American burlap man- ufactories. We shall be pleased to answer further inquiries as best we can, and remain, dear sir, Yours, respectfully, WM. LYALL, Treasurer . [The Eureka Fire Hose Company, linen hose .] ^New York, September 4, 1885. Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: In accordance with the invitation extended by you to the manufacturers of the country, to state their views with respect to the operation of the tariff in its relations to the classes of goods which they severally manufacture, we would respectfully submit for your consider- ation the following statement of facts relating to the manufacture and sale of “flux, canvas, or linen hydraulic hose.” That such hose is in- voiced by manufacturers in Great Britaiu to tfieir agents in this coun- try at a rate which is below the market rate iu England, for the pur- pose of making the market of the United States an outlet for their sur- plus products, we believe that the report or the United States Treas- ury agent, Col. George C. Tichnor, in October, 1884, who investigated this question in England, will fully demonstrate, and itisour present intention and endeavor to make it plain to you that from the prices at which these goods are sold iu this country such must necessarily be the case. We will first show by letters and invoices from reputable yarn manufact- urers (which we auuex) what has been the prevailing price of flax hose- yarns in Great Britain during the present season. The B quality of one REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 101 manufacturer about corresponds with th^ Iso. 1 quality of the other, and these qualities are as low as can be used economically iu the manufact- ure of a good marketable grade of hose, and are as poor as any reputa bie yarn-maker desires to sell. We tried during the past year some ol the next grade lower, but found that owing to the excessive waste from dirt and its inferiority in strength the cost of the hose was even more than when the usual quality of 13 or No. 1 was used. Messrs. Watson & Shield and Messrs. Richards & Co. are b th very large man- ufacturers of yarn, and we are contideut will sell to us as low as any English manufacturer can buy. We also buy B quality yarns of Messrs. Marshall & Co., of Leeds, through the agency in New York. Their prices are duty paid, but correspond to those of others. It necessary we can furnish additional proof to establish the fact that 11 pence per pound has been the lowest market price for a fair quality of hose yarn during the past season. The usual weight of 2£-iuch hose of the quality referred to in this statement is not less than 64 pounds per hundred yards, and the shrinkage in weight of yarn and waste iu manufacture is not less than 3 per cent., or say (>G pounds are required for each 100 yards of hose woven, making the cost ot material per 100 yards 726 pence. We have endeavored to procure statements from British manufacturers of their estimates of the cost of manufacture per yard of this quality of hose, and directly and indirectly we have received several such estimates, the lowest of which was 2 pence per yard. Probably the most reliable statement of all was one which we received from an English manufacturing concern, who, ostensibly pro- posing to commence the manufacture of hose, wrote to the makers of the loom chiefly used by the English hose manufacturers, asking those makers to quote their prices for looms and to furnish them with a de- tail statement of the production of those looms, the cost of manufact- ure of hose, profits, &c. The loom maker’s estimate was 2J pence per yard for labor, power, maintenance, &c. We will, however, for our present purpose, adopt 2 pence per yard as the estimated cost, that being, we believe, the lowest -price for which it is possible to produce the hose. Oue hundred yards, therefore, would cost 200 pence to manufacture, which, added to 726 pence, the cost of material, makes 926 pence per 100 yards as the actual cost of 2^-inch hose manufactured iu Great Britain. This 2J inch hose has been imported into this country during the present season invoiced at 2s. (id. per yard, less 70 per cent., and fre- quently at 65 and 5 per cent, discount, when a discount of 50 and 10 per cent, from list prices is a fair average discount alio ed by manufact urers there for home market. One hundred yards, at 2s. Gd. per yard, equals 3,000 pence, and less 70 per cent, equals 900 pence per 100 yards, or 26 pence per 100 yards less than the actual cost of manufacture in Great Britain, based upon the lowest estimate of cost. Better qualities of yarn cost about 13 J pence per pound, and the hose made from these quali- ties of yarn is manufactured in Great Britain exclusively upon hand- looms, and consequently costs very much more to produce than the lower grades. The foregoing statementof facts, which we know the mostcare- lul investigation of the subject that may be made will fully sustain, dem onstrates that there must necessarily be crookedness somewhere, which consists in invoicing their products for this market through special agen- cies at a much greater discount from price lists than those allowed iu their home markets; therefore placing their goods here, upon which duty is paid, far below the market value there. We do not wish to be under- stood as advocating a policy of either free trade or protection, but simply 102 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. one which will not discriminate in favor of foreign manufacturers, feeling confident of our ability to take care of ourselves under any just law prop- erly enforced*, but it appears only justice to American hose manufact- urers either that they should receive their raw material duty free, and be thereby enabled to compete in the markets of the world, or upon the other hand, such duty should be imposed upon foreign-made hose as will give the American manufacturers a slight advantage in the home market. Of course it is understood by you that the present tariff would afford hose manufacturers no protection, even were it possible to collect it fairly upon foreign hose, as the rate of duty upon yarn and the manufactured hose are equal , the yarn being made in Great Britain from flax grown in Russia. We have omitted any reference to costs of freight, consul fees, dis- count for cash, &c., as they are about the same x^er pound upon yarn and hose. This company possesses imx^roved machinery and facilities for manufacturing flax hose equal to those of any hose manufacturer in the world, our machinery enabling us to overcome to a great extent our disadvantage in the price of labor; but notwithstanding all our advan- tages, we are unable, in consequence of foreign competition and under- valuation, to do much more than tox>rocure a retail trade in this class of hose. In consideration of the foregoing facts, we resided fully submit that a specific duty per pound of hose seems to us the fairest means of col- lecting a duty upon these goods, and such tax should be high enough to protect American manufacturers in all grades of hose; and not only to do that, but we also think that while the tax upon our raw material is maintained, thereby prohibiting us from entering foreign markets, we should be entitled to some benefits from the operations of the tariff as compensation for that disadvantage. A specific duty that would equal the present tariff upon the best qualities of hose, would be not less than 25 cents per pound of hose, and it seems to us that such a rate upon all grades of hose would be no more than American hose manu- facturers are justly entitled to receive whenever a revision of tariff laws should be undertaken; and in the mean time we would respectfully peti- tion that, if imssible, such ruling shall be made under present laws as will prohibit the foreign article from being sold in the United States at a price less than that prevailing in the Euglish markets. We there- fore recommend for amended tariff* legislation the following: That “flax, canvas, or linen hydraulic hose” shall pay a duty of 25 cents per x>ound. Respectfully, EUREKA FIRE HOSE COMPANY, JUNIUS SCHENCK, Secretary and General Agent. The undersigned manufacturers fully concur in the above. NEW YORK BELTING AND PACKING COMPANY, By HENRY G. HERKNER. RUSSELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, E. DEMING, Treasurer. G. A. EBERLE. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 1 03 [Inclosure.] [From Richards & Co.] To Mr. J. van D. Reed, York Club, 8 St. James Square , London : Aberdeen, April 4, 1885. Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your favor of 2d instant, and in reply, as we are anxious to secure your orders, we will in this case sacrifice the Id., which lies between us, and enter for trial 1 ton of 14 Lea fiax B 3-ply, boiled, at 11 d. per pound, finished weight, less 2£ per cent, discount and 30 days f. o. b. Glasgow. We are quite sure that when you have tried this yarn you will find that it is well worth 11 id. per pound We are very desirous that you should try our yarn finished as we finish it. You will find it to work easily and be very economical in the working. H. RICHARDS & CO. [In closure.! [From Richards & Co., flax and jute spinners, linen manufacturers, bleacher's and dyers.] To Mr. J. van D. Reed, York Club, 8 St. James Square, London, April 2, 1885 ; Dear Sir : In reply to your favor of the 31st ultimo we beg to confirm having wired you yesterday afternoon, as follows : “ Letter received ; will meet you at eleven ; one farthing, as we are anxious for you to try the yarn.” As you are aware there has been a heavy advance on yarns since November, and we could not possibly do this yarn at 11 pence per pound, even 11| pence is a very bare price, but as we are anxious for you to give our yarns a trial we will meet you by entering at 11^ pence per pound, and hope to be favored with particulars of your order in course. Yours, truly, RICHARDS & CO. [Inclosure.] To Messrs. Eureka Fire Hose Company, Brooklyn, N. Y. : Dundee, June 8, 1885. Gentlemen : We are in receipt of your esteemed favor of 26th ult., and have en- tered you for 1 ton 14 Lea flax line, 3-ply No. 1, at 11 pence per pound finished, which will be sent on at once (per first steamer). Your further commands will receive our prompt and careful attention. Yours faithfully, WATSON & SHIELD. [Inclosure.] Dundee, August 7, 1885. To Messrs. Eureka Fire Hose Company, Brooklyn: Gentlemen: We are in receipt of your esteemed favor of 28th ult., and have en- tered you for 2 tons 14 Lea flax line, 3-ply warp No. 1, finished ; 1 ton 14 Lea flax line, 9-ply weft No. 1, finished, at 11 pence per pound finished. The 3-ply will be shipped per first steamer, and the 9-ply will follow with the next. Regarding the price, we really could not enter them at less ; in fact, we are selling to you lower than any other firm, and we are sure you will find them really first-class value. Will see that the goods are made up in as long lengths and as few knots as possible. We are, gentlemen, yours faithfully, WATSON & SHIELD. 104 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY [The Cable Flax Mills, twines, yarns, and threads.'] Schaghticoke, near Troy, N. Y., July 28 , 1885 . Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary , Treasury Department, Washington, D. G. Sir : In reply to yours of 21st instant, I venture the opiniou that the only way to prevent the evasion of our tariff laws, whether the tax is specific or ad valorem, is by an impartial administration of the laws as enacted, always giving the benefit of any doubts as to the real meaning of the law not to foreign but to domestic industry. The manufacture of flax, hemp and jute goods in our country depends almost entirely upon the imposition of a tax or tariff upon imported goods, sufficient to cover the additional cost of labor in our American nulls. For twenty years last past we have paid and are now paying an aver- age of two or three times as much per day for labor as our European competitors pay. In particular kinds of our work, requiring long ex- perience and skill, we are paying as many dollars per day as European competitors pay shillings sterling, or about four times the wages paid in Europe, Notwithstanding this undeniable fact, we fail to secure such legisla- tion as will u let us loose n in the laudable endeavor to supply the wants of our own people with flax, hemp, and jute goods. In jute goods alone we imported, in 1888, $11,281,523.24 in value, or about 403,000 bales of raw jute, weighing 400 pounds each ; and there were manufactured in that year in our country only 63,000 bales. But if all the jute goods consumed in our country were manufactured here, it w«mld require a capital of $30,000,000 and give employment to 25,000 work-people. In the flax industry we are in a still worse position. The total exports of linen piece-goods from the United Kingdom of Great Britain to all peoples in 1880 were 162,247,300 yards, at a value of $23,321,203, of which 78,169,400 yards, at a value of $11,335,854, or very nearly one- half, came to the United States. We consume nearly as many linen piece-goods as all the rest of the world outside of Great Britain, because we are prosperous, and we should not remove the basis of our prosper- ity by reducing wages. How, then, can we supply ourselves with linen piece-goods? Simply by imposing a little more tax upon the imported goods, to cover the higher cost of American labor. Grant this, and in a short time we will make our own flax, hemp, and jute goods, and do- mestic competition will very soon put prices of these very goods lower than at present. But our foreign competitors are not content with their victory in the capital at Washington. Our tariff taxes, as soon as authorized, are more or less evaded in the interest of importers, and against the inter- ests of American labor and American prosperity. I do not assert that our officials are influenced by bribery with money, but I do assert that our tariff* laws are evaded. Our officials become personally acquainted with importers in the daily routine of business, and they seldom see American manufacturers and laborers unless we appear to protest against their decisions and rulings. It is therefore easy to understand how, little by little, our oflicials give way to the friendly pressure of Europeans, and are thus influenced to make these auti- American decisions. Specific duties cannot be so easily evaded as ad valorem duties, but it is my candid opiniou that specific duties have been shamefully evaded, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 105 with the full knowledge and consent of officials who have sworn solemnly to execute the laws. The duty upon flax is $20 per ton. The duty upon tow is $10 per ton. Flax is long flbered and kept straight. Tow, the lefuse of flax, is short- fibered and not kept straight. Flax is usually tied in bundles of about 100 pounds each, and tow is pressed in bales of about 500 pounds each. Hundreds of tons of flax have been entered as tow at $10 per ton duty during the past three or four years, by being laid straight into tow presses and pressed into 500-pouud bales, like tow. Although this was a gross outrage upon every American farmer, and every loyal American flax spinner, it went on, our officials knowing full well that they were passing flax and not tow. Previous to the last change in our tariff, in 1883, the duty upon hemp yarn was 5 cents per pound, and the duty upon “ linen yarn for carpets ” was 30 per cent, ad valorem. Under this law great quantities of hemp yarn, at a cost of about 11 cents per pound in Europe, was admitted at 30 per cent, as u linen yarn for carpets,” although our officials acknowl- edged that they were fully aware that the yarn was hemp yarn, with out a particle of flax in it. From these two illustrations you will see how specific duties have been evaded in our line of business. I have no personal positive knowl- edge of evasions of duties upon linen (manufactured) goods. I will, however, venture the opinion that such evasions are continually and successfully carried on. This can be more easily done where the same house is located in the United States and also in a foreign city. I be- lieve, however, that our consular agents at the foreign shipping ports and our appraisers at the American port can, if they will, stop such evasion at ouce and keep it stopped. Let the consular agent refuse to lend himself to be the medium of false swearing by the shipper, and the evasion is quite impossible. Let the appraiser at the port of entry refuse to pass upon undervalued or false- named merchandise and the evasion is impossible, although infidelity may have been practiced at the foreign shipping port. Although it might not be proven in court, yet it is undoubtedly true that nearly every evasion of our customs taxes is carried through with full knowl- edge of one or more of our officials, sworn solemnly to execute the law which is evaded. Iuclosed herewith you will find a small sample each of flax, hemp, and jute, also flax tow. The cost of producing a ton of American flax of average quality is about $250. The duty upon foreign flax is $20 per ton, which is, and has been, entirely inadequate to insure the cultiva- tion of flax-fiber in our own country for our own use. The duty should be increased to $60 per ton as a stimulus to the American agriculturist. The average duty upon flax is 8 per cent., upon hemp 20 per cent., and upon jute 30 per cent. You will find herewith iuclosed a few samples of twines, yarns, and threads manufactured by our company. We make about 150 different kinds, from both domestic and foreign flax and hemp, all the jute being imported. The duty upon threads and twines is 40 per cent, ad valorem. The duty upon yarns is 35 per cent, ad valorem. We weave no linen cloth, because the duty upon such goods is not sufficient to cover additional cost of the added labor of weaving, bleach- ing, and finishing the cloth. Let us have a little more protection (say 20 per cent, more) than at present upon woven linen goods and the weaving of linen cloths will be at once commenced in our country. 106 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Our business requires very substantial and expensive buildings and delicate, rapid-running machinery. We have over $200,000 invested in buildings, water power, and chinery. One huudred pounds of twine, which sells for $20, requires : value of fiber, $13 (mostly labor and cost in growing and cleaning) ; cost of labor (in mill), $4; operating expenses, including interest, $2.50 (would be one-half to two-thirds less in Europe). While a specific duty upon twines, yarns, and threads might be de- sirable to aid in preventing undervaluation, it would be very difficult to make a schedule for linen goods which would prove better than the present. We want enough duty to protect our higher labor cost ; and as there is more labor upon finer kinds of twine, yarn, thread, and cloth, the actual duty should be fixed accordingly, and a specific duty would be quite as easily evaded as an ad valorem. Yours, very truly, E. A. HARTSHORN, President and Treasurer Cable Flax Mills. [J. R. Leeson & Co., linen thread.'] Boston, November 6, 1885. Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. C. : Sir: The undersigned beg to acknowledge receipt of the circular dated July 28, 1885, requesting our views upon the question of substi- tuting specific for ad valorem duties upon linen thread and twines. We should have given an earlier response, but desired first to make com- parisons with the German and French rates and to consider the mat- ter in detail. In submitting for your consideration a schedule of the duties we recommend we will frankly state our position. We are amongst the largest importers of linen thread in this country. Our in- terests should therefore be equal to those of any importing firm in having fair and reasonable rates of duty imposed upon such merchandise. We are emphatically in favor of specific rates when the same can be ap- plied equitably. Upon the present basis — 40 per cent, ad valorem — on thread we have for years been at a disadvantage, arising from the fact that all, or nearly all, the British linen-thread manufacturers, excepting the firm from whom we purchase our threads, invoice threads to America at higher discounts thau any known in the English home market. We were told by the late chief appraiser of dry-goods at this port that if we brought in our threads with higher discounts he should pass our entries, as he passed the invoices of other importers, in accordance with the practice at the port of New York. As, however, we knew that no higher discounts than our own were allowed in the English market, we could not take advantage of this permission in advauce, the result being that we have paid duties upon a higher level of prices., as we understand it, than the basis allowed the importers of other makes of linen threads. For obvious reasons we favor a specific rate, provided, however, that the same be applied upon correct principles. We are firmly of the opinion that a graded basis should govern the classification of linen threads. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 107 The German system of one rate over all cannot be adopted without entailing serious injury upon the manufacturing interests of this coun- try. We consider the system now in use in Fiance preferable, (1) be- cause under that method the incidence of the tax is more evenly dis- tributed ; (2) because it will prevent undervaluation and fraud ; (3) because it is best adapted to the protection of the just interests of linen- thread manufacturers in the United States. In the schedule which we herewith submit the basis adopted is upon the same system as the French. The rates suggested are taken from the price-list now current and issued in 1880 by the makers we pur- chase of, Messrs. Finlay son, Bousfield & Co., Scotland. As this price- list has been unaltered for five years, and is similar to the lists of other standard thread-makers, it will be seen that it is a fair average of actual current values. We have taken an average of prices upon such kinds and qualities as are most used in this country at the lowest wholesale market rates known in England. We have given the duty at these prices in specific rates equivalent to the present rate of 40 per cent, ad valorem in such away as to guard the interests of the Government by the prevention of fraudulent evasions of the duty, and at the same time encourage the importation of foreign made threads, while protecting, to a reasonable extent, the interests of the domestic linen-thread manu- facturers. The basis we suggest is simple, easily understood, and is fair to all interested. In addition to our importations we are the agents for the sale of the product of the flax-mills, Grafton, Mass., which are owned and operated by Finlaysou, Bousfield &Co., of Scotland. Our acquaintance with the conditions of thread manufacture in England and in America should enable us to deal impartially with both. As a matter of fact, it is equally important to us that the importation of linen thread should be stimulated by fair and equitable rates of duty, and that the growth of linen-thread manufacture in the United States shall be encouraged thiough the collection of reasonable impost dues. Having both these ends in view, we have gone over the entire ground in regard to linen thread duties. The schedule which we beg to submit has been prepared with great care. It is simple and effectual lrom every standpoint-, and we strongly recommend it lor adoption intact, without modification or change in any particular. Before closing we earnestly suggest that in any future tariff legisla- tion clause T. I new, 347, which was injected into Schedule J in the closing hours of the session of Congress which enacted the act March 3, 1883, be expunged. This will leave the classification of linen thread and its correlatives as provided for in clause T. I new, 336, Schedule J, for “flax or linen thread,” &c. This last clause was the sole provision for the articles therein enumer- ated prior to the act March 3, 1883, and was always sufficient for all practical purposes. The files of the Treasury Department will indicate the difficulties with which the Department has had to contend as a direct result of the existence of the new provision referred to. We beg to append the schedule we have prepared, and, with great respect, we remain, sir, Yours, faithfully, J. K. LEESON & CO, 108 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC RATES ON FLAX OR LINEN THREAD, ETC. The rates should be differential, i. e., graded according to numbers. Note. — The foundation of lengths in the linen trade is a length of 300 yards per pound of yarn in No. 1. For twisted threads— i. e., yarns doubled, trebled, &c ., twisted together to form a cord — divide the lengths of single yarn by the number of strands in the thread. Basis. — Linen, flax, or hemp yarn, measuring, per pound — Specific rates. Spool threads by weigfct, per lb. All other th leads by weight, and yarn' (singles) per lb. 1st stage, No. 1 to No. 10, varn, 300 to 3,000 yards per lb Cents. 24 j 32 43 57 73 Cents. ( 16 ] 17 ( 18 22 28 37 53 67 2d stage, above No. 10 to No. 15, yarn, abov’e3,000 to 4,500 yards per lb 3d stage, above No. 15 to No. 20, yarn, above 4,500 to (5,000 yards per lb 4th stage, above No. 20 to No. 30, yarn, above (5,000 to i),( 00 yards per lb. . Btli stage, above No. 30 to No. 40, yarn, above 9.000 to 12,000 yards per lb. 6th stage, above No. 40 to No. CO, yarn, above 12,000 to 18 000 yards per lb 7th stage, above No. 60 to No. 80, yarn, above 18,000 to 24,000 yards per lb. 8th stage, above No. 80 and upwards, yarn, above 24,000 and upwards yards per lb Linen thread on leigth spools. Y ards per spool. 100. 150. 200. 300. 400. 500. Rate per gross, 2-cord Rate per gross, 3-cord ' $1 10 1 1 40 $1 58 2 03 $1 95 : 2 55 $2 68 3 89 $3 77 4 99 $4 62 6 20 [The same.] Boston, November 6 , 1885. Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Washington. D. C. : Sir: Referring to the Treasury circular sent to the Grafton Flax Mills, asking for informntion in regard to linen -thread manufacturing, we beg to submit briefly our replies upon the main points suggested therein. The Grafton (Massachusetts) Flax Mills are owned and operated by Messrs. Finlayson, Bousfield & Co., of Johnstone, Scotland, who are extensive manufacturers of linen threads at Johnstone. It will be seen that the operating of a mjll in Scotland as well as in the United States, producing similar articles, gives an iusight to the relative cost of manu- facture which could hardly be obtained by outside inquiries. Before noting the points mentioned in the circular, we desire to express our views upon the question of the duty on flax, which is the raw material used at Grafton. We are unaware of the existence of any American grown flax which could be used in the manufacture of the threads made at Grafton; hence, whatever duty is imposed upon flax, while being of no benefit to any interest here, serves as a clog upon the linen-thread industry of the United States. So far as we can judge from existing circumstances we shall always have to import flax suitable to the re- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 109 qnirements of the Grafton Flax Mills. This flax we import in the heckled state, the flax thus dressed being known as “dressed line.” The flax is merely subjected to the process of heckling, a system of combing, with the object of separating the long from the short fiber. The long fiber becomes known as dressed line; the short fiber is called tow. As we use only long fiber in our threads, there is clearly no object in shipping the short fiber, or tow, to Gratton. Long fiber flax, or dressed line, therefore, is alone sent to the Grafton Mills, that only being used in making the threads there manufactured. In other words, this dressed line flax is our raw material, the only raw material we use, or could under any circumstances use as the mills are at present equipped. We would earnestly urge that our raw material be given to us free from all duty, and that the discrimination as at present existing in the tariff as against dressed flax be discontinued in all future legislation. When it is remembered that the dressed line is the ouly kind of flax that can be used at Grafton, and that no flax suited to our purposes is obtainable in the United States, it is self-evident that whatever the duty imjjosed on this flax is a direct blow at the flax-spinning industries of this coun- try, and that the only class benefited by such duty is the foreigu manu- facturer. Having thus briefly indicated our views upon the question of free raw material, we now offer such information as is at our command on the chief items enumerated in the circular of the Department. Wages . — The wages paid throughout all the manufacturing depart- ments at Grafton are fully double what are paid at the Johnstone Mills for exactly the same work. In many cases the Grafton raies are 200 per centum greater, and it is certainly within the mark to state that the wages at Grafton are double those paid in Johnstone for the same work and time. Machinery . — The machinery at Grafton was all imported, as no flax machinery such as is there used is, to our knowledge, made in the United States. The duty on the machinery was 35 per cent., and on the brass and steel portions 45 per cent, ad valorem. With transit and other incidental charges added, the cost at Grafton was 50 per cent, higher than in Scotland. Buildings . — Such experience as we have had of building in the United States leads to the conclusion that a mill here costs at least double what the same mill would cost in Scotland. With buildings and machinery costing 100 per cent, higher, it will be seen that a mill in the United States, fully equipped for running, will involve double the capital and interest charges of an establishment in Scotland. Supplies . — General mill supplies are as a rule dearer at Grafton than at Johnstone, although oils are somewhat less here; but on the whole, prices here for supplies are higher than in Scotland. Coal . — This is a very important item, and it is considerably dearer at Grafton than at Johnstone. Coal has never been lower at Grafton than $4.50 per ton, while at Johnstone a similar quality could be bought for $1.25 to $1.50 per ton. The cost of coal at Grafton, therefore, will be fully three times the cost at Johnstone. From the foregoing it will be seen that the cost of manufacturing threads at Grafton is very much greater than in Scotland: (1) the duty of 5 to 7 per cent, on the raw material used ; (2) building costs 100 per cent, more; (3) machinery costs 50 per cent, more; (4) coal costs 200 per cent, more ; (5) wages are at least 100 per cent, higher. Under such circumstances a protective duty on the manufactured thread is abso- lutely essential to the existence of an American linen-thread mill. Taking into consideration all the various items of increased cost, as 110 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. enumerated, we are fully satisfied that any reduction of the present rate of duty on linen thread, which is 40 per cent, ad valorem, would entail the most serious results upon linen -thread manufacturing in the United States, and would make it extremely difficult for domestic thread manufacturers to hold their own against foreign-made threads. We beg to remain, sir, with great respect, yours faithfully, J. B. LEESON & CO., Selling Agents for Finlay son , Bonsfield & Co ., The Flax Mills , North Grafton, Mass. [Lowell Manufacturing Company, carpets, wool, 4c-] Paris, October 1, 1885. Hon. Daniel. Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir : In response to a circular of July last, addressed to manu- facturers and others (one of which was sent to the Lowell Manufact- uring Company (carpet manufacturers), of which I am treasurer), I am unable to enter into any details as to costs, &c., owing to my absence from the United States for a few months, but the bearing of the tariff on the making of carpets has been thoroughly stated in the hearings before the Committee of Ways and Means last winter, and before the recent change in the tariff, and in special circular of the carpet manu- facturers to the Tariff Commission. Mr. Charles. F. Fairbanks, treasurer of the Bigelow Carpet Company, Boston, and also secretary of the Car- pet Manufacturers’ Association, and Mr. John L. Houston, president of the Hartford Carpet Company at Thompsonville, Conn, (amoug others), can give full and reliable information, and have probably written on the subject. Allow me, however, to offer a few general suggestions in response to the circular. As to specific duties in general, it seems as if it must be unnecessary to say a word after the practical experience of importers and customs officers with ad valorem duties. Apart from the statement that there are various articles made in Europe that cannot be bought at all in Europe, because the makers consign them all to their own agents in the United States, and do not wish to have any quoted price in Europe, it is simply a matter of common notoriety that sellers here very gener- ally, and ns a matter of course, offer to make out bills for one half of the amount actually paid. There is nothing new about this. I have had such an offer made thirty years ago as well as this summer, and was evidently considered a fool for declining the offer. The variety in style and quality of articles, and the difference in real value of articles of very similar appearance, the immense and compli- cated variety of modern fabrics makes it practically impossible to avoid deception and fraud under an ad valorem system, at least to a very great extent. For this reason, among others, it was urged that if, in spite of the wishes of all manufacturers of carpets, it should be decided to establish for them an ad valorem duty only (as was once suggested) that it should be levied, not on the invoice cost but on some fixed value the average of a considerable number of years, so as to avoid the great fluctuations in value; but a specific duty per yard is much better. It also puts all ports of entry on an equality. The views of appraisers have often dif- differed widely at different ports. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. Ill The duty on carpet wool is in terms specific, but as the rates differ as the foreign value is above or not above 12 cents, a most troublesome ad valorem element is really involved. As a great deal of carpet w ool is normally close to the dividing point in value, there is constant diffi- culty and an enormous temptation to misrepresent the real cost at the foreign port of shipment. I believe it is not too much to say that in many cases it must be impossible for the United States officers to ascer- tain whether the value should be 12 cents, or less or more, and, besides any question of fraud or evasion, it is out of the question even for an expert to decide with certainty whether a certain lot of w r ool is worth 12 cents or 12-J^. The difficulties in this matter are perfectly well understood by the United States appraisers at Boston and New York. But I contend that there should be no duty whatever on carpet wools. It is well known that this particular duty was imposed for the sake of revenue, and the carpet trade depends almost entirely for its supply of raw material on foreign wools. The small amount of domestic wool used for the carpet trade is practically from what might be called wild sheep, or sheep in transition, i. e ., the raising of carpet wool is not pro- perly a domestic industry; it takes no more legs or stomach to raise wool of very much greater value; no one tries to raise a. small ear of corn on land that can easily produce large ones, or to grow a pound of poor wool when he might just as well grow two or three pounds of good wool. In this respect carpet wools stand on a different basis from clothing and combing wools. Under the conditions of the tariff of 1867, as applying to wool and woolens, a very high rate of duty was imposed on manufactured arti- cles; but this high rate, while it gives cause for much complaint, is very largely fictitious, being offset to a great extent by the enormous duties levied on the raw materials and dye-stuffs, &c., while the heavy duty on machinery makes the cost of piant vastly more here than in Europe. Taxes in Massachusetts, and in most other States, are levied on both personal and fixed capital and property— on merchandise and credit, as well as on real estate and machinery. They cannot be estimated at less than 1J per cent, per annum on the full value of the whole property. As to wages, I suppose it may be said in general that they are from 25 to 100 per cent, higher in the worsted trade in this country than in England or on the continent of Europe, and may average at least 35 to 50 per cent, higher. But on this point various reliable sets of figures of actual wages have been collected by the agents of the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor and by others. As to the general question of protection and of tariff rates, it may fairly be said that the high duties (imposed largely owing to the exi- gencies of the war of the rebellion) forced the growth of manufactures in the United States, and that it is now only lair that in considering any reduction of the tariff this abnormal growth and the existing con- ditions should be taken into account. While a large net reduction of rates would cause great losses to the owners of mills, the chief distress would fall on the operatives, as it would seem to be simply una voidable that their wages would have to be largely reduced ; there would be some offset to this reduction, but I cannot see that it would be of any great amount. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the general interest of the country as a whole requires a movement — cautious, and feeling its way — in the direction of free trade with all the world, and in spite of the large in- terests I have in various “protected” industries, I feel decidedly that 112 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TiTE TREASURY. there should be uo advance in the duties ou any article unless it be to correct an error or an accident. The first step, it seems to me, should be the freeing: of all articles of food, so far as the revenue requirements will allow, and of all raw materials. By taking the duties off of bread- stuffs, animals and provisions, carpet wool, at least, if not also in part on other wools, fruits, artificial dyestuffs and chemicals, and some of the minor articles which it is absurd to tax, and which bring in a revenue running from about $1 upwards, a considerable saving might be made in the cost of production of certain articles, and in the cost of living to the operatives — and a desirable reduction of revenue might also be ef- fected. If a further reduction were needed, the duty on sugar might be reduced or abolished. I am well aware that questions have been raised as to what are raw materials, but there is little practical difficulty about it; the term is well understood. Each article of so called raw material can be consid- ered by itself, and no theoretical discussion as to what constitutes raw material need disturb the problem. With the advantages possessed by the United States it may be considered quite as unnecessary to restrict the importation of ice, or wheat, or butter, or coal, or wool, as that of cotton. The duties on raw materials necessarily tend to restrict exports. The duty ou carpet- wool, for instance, would make it impossible to com- pete with England in foreign markets, even if there were no other ele- ments of increased cost here ; and the duty as now imposed interferes with the proper selection of wools for carpets. The abolition of duties on raw materials and on other articles indi- cated above can, I believe, be made, at least in very large degree, with- out producing any disturbance in trade of any consequence, and with decided advantages. There are some articles that may be called man- ufactures with more or less propriety which are made in Europe much cheaper than they can be made here, and the making of such articles, when not now madeou a large scale in the United States, should not, I think, be encouraged by high duties. Formerly there was in this country a scarcity of capital and of skilled labor, and on this ground protection was asked for. Skilled labor now exists or can be procured, and there is no scarcity of capital. The present commercial depression has had a peculiar feature, i. e., in general, consumption has been large and wages have kept up generally (except during its last stages), while profits have vanished — large pro- duction and large sales and yet no profit — iu many cases a loss. This seems to indicate an excess of capital put into manufactures — an excessive number of mills that by struggling for a market have annihi- ated profits. This excessive production of mills and “ plant” has very largely been brought about, I believe, by the protective tariffs that various countries have imposed. Canada is a good illustration. If England has machin- ery enough to supply the world with a certain kind of goods, and Ger- many and the United States exclude them to some extent byprotective tariffs, mills will be at once built in Germany and the United States. It is clear that there will then be an excessive power of production to supply the world with this special article. These countries will then contend for the market and the prices will be forced down so as to de- stroy all profit or to entail a loss. The low r prices may stimulate con- sumption, but probably to the detriment of some other industry. Yours, respectfully, ARTHUR T. LYMAN. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 113 [W. & J. Sloane, carpets.'] New York, October 13, 1885. . Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G.: Dear Sir : We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your circular let- ter of the 1st of August last, in which you “ ask advice and our views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff and making the duties specific upon imported merchandise, with which we are familiar, now subject to ad valorem rates or to which the ad valorem principle is ap- plied,” &c. In reply, we respectfully submit that while it may be prac- ticable to prepare a schedule showing specific rates on the various de- scriptions of carpetings equivalent to the present compound duties, we are strongly of the opinion that the levying of specific duties which do not bear equally on the more expensive as on the less costly goods, cannot be as equitable or just as the system which has been in opera- tion since March, 1867. The only evasions of the tariff that have come to our knowledge during a period of many years, which have subjected us to injury, are the consignments of Turkish and Persian rugs from Constantinople and elsewhere in the East. The true value of these goods is becoming so well known or can be so readily ascertained that we feel confident any future attempt to falsify invoices of the same at this port is almost sure to be detected. Assuring you of our hearty co-operation in your efforts for the im- provement of the “ custom-revenue system,” We are, very respectfully, W. & J. SLOANE. [H. A. Hartley & Co., carpets.] Boston, August 18, 1885. The Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury Department, Washington, D. G.: Sir : We have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your circular let- ter of 29th ultimo requesting our opinion of the most desirable mode or collecting duties on goods such as are imported by us, viz, carpets, rugs, ifiats, oil-cloths, &c., so as best to protect the Government and the importer against evasions of the tariff. We think it will be generally admitted that fraud can be practiced, quite irrespective of the system adopted, but our judgment from long experience is that a purely ad valorem duty on the goods w r e have specified would be found much more satisfactory in every respect, less complicated, and affording better protection against fraud than a specific duty, or the complex system now in force. One great objection to the present system, as applied to carpets, is I lie difficulty of determining the correct amount of duty required at the t ime of entering the goods ; as the calculation is very complicated and intricate, even for experienced custom-house brokers, w 7 hom we inva- riably employ and necessitates a deposit which proves sometimes to be in excess, and at other times short of the required amount. This objection is equally applicable to the specific duties. This complication one can readily see opens a wider door for fraud than the more simple u ad valorem ” system. Indeed we are at a loss S. Ex. 72 8 114 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. to see how, under the latter system, fraud can escape the practiced eye and judgment of an ordinary expert, a glance at the goods being suffi- cient to judge of quality, and the weight of the bale or package, of the quantity contained therein. A purely u ad valorem n duty would also, from its simplicity, be more economical for the Government, as a much smaller staff would be re- quired to perform the duties iu that particular department. We are conscious of the difficulty of adjusting a tariff which, while meeting the requirements of the Government, will best protect the in- terests of the manufacturer and guard the public from unfair imposi- tion, but would venture to suggest the advisability of submitting the whole subject to a mixed commission of manufacturers and importers, to consider all the questions involved and endeavor to reach a conclu- sion that will harmonize the several interests, afford the best protec- tion against fraud, and simplify the machinery of the customs depart- ment. Your communication would have received earlier attention but for the absence of our senior in Europe. We remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servants, H. A. HARTLEY & CO. [T. O. Hague, carpets ] New York, August 21, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : In reply to your circular letter calling for information re tariff laws and revenue collection, I have the honor to report that I am in- terested in the importation of oriental rugs, oriental brass ware, and other products of the countries east of Cape Good Hope. I also import jute carpets and jute mattings from Scotland. Compound duties on whole carpets are objectionable, because intri- cate, and give rise to contests in their appraisements. I believe whole carpets and all oriental rugs should pay duties alike, and in no case over 30 x>er cent, ad valorem, and would recommend 25 per cent, ad valorem. Jute mattings and jute carpets should pay the same rate of duty, to avoid contest in appraisement, and should pay a duty not to exceed 20 per cent, ad valorem. As these goods rarely ever cost over 20 cents per yard, it is a very simple matter for the appraiser to learn their valae to a certainty, and therefore there could be no object in under- valuation. As the law now stands jute carpets pay 6 cents per square yard, and many of them do not cost as much; therefore this rate of duty amounts in some cases to over 100 per cent. These goods are used ex- clusively by the poorest classes; therefore the present rate should be abolished. In many cases mattings and carpets are so alike that appraisers are unable to distinguish the one from the other even with a sample of each before them. As a rule specific duties can be taken advantage of by unscrupulous importers, and the revenue can be defrauded as much as by ad valorem duties. There are many classes of goods specific duties could not be applied to without great injustice to the importer, the consumer, aud the Government, and the imposition of them would simply prohibit im- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 115 portation, and thus the Government would on many things collect no revenue at all, unless the specific duty was so light as to amount to the admission of a large list at mere nominal rates. It would seem to me that, in comparison with the tariff of other countries, ours should be lower as the safest way to revive trade and shipping. Yours, very truly, T. O. HAGUE. [Tho American Carpet Manufacturers’ Association, carpets.'] Philadelphia, October 28, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir: The undersigned, representing the most important branches of the carpet industry, beg to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of July 18, 1885. We would respectfully protest against any change in the tariff, espe- cially on carpets, having, as a whole, under the tarifi* of 1883, suffered greater reductions than any other industry covered by “ Schedule K, Wool and Wooleus.” We also fail to see how specific rates could be equitably adjusted or wherein they would simplify the tariff or prevent fraud in the revenue. We believe the present system of compound duties to be the only equitable manner of protecting the manufacturer oil his wide range of fabrics, and equally efficacious in the interests of the Government and people. Arguments in support of our conclusions, which we heartily indorse, have been presented to you by the “National Association of Wool Man- ufacturers,” and also by the “Philadelphia Textile Association,” to which we respectfully refer. Assuring you of our earnest support of any measure you may inaug- urate looking to the improvement and better enforcement of our cus- toms laws and regulations, we remain, Yery respectfully, your obedient servants, J. L. HOUSTON, President. CHAS. F. FAIBBANKS, Secretary . October 28, 1885. At the annual meeting of the above association, held this day, the foregoing letter was unanimously adopted. CHAS. F. FALBBANKS, Secretary. 116 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [American Carpet Manufacturers’ Association.] List of member 8, October 8, 1885. Abbott & Co., Massachusetts ; Bigelow Carpet Company, Massachusetts; Bromley Bros. (Limited), Pennsylvania ; J. & G. D. Bromley, Pennsylvania ; John Bromley & Sons, Pennsylvania ; Beattie Manufacturing Company, New York; John Coch- rane, jr., Massachusetts; Alex. Crane & Sons, Pennsylvania; Robert Carson, Pennsylvania; Dornan Bros. & Co., Pennsylvania; Geo. W. Ennis& Co., Pennsyl- vania ; John Gay’s Sons, Pennsylvania; Hogg & Metzzen, Pennsylvania; Hartford Carpet Company, Connecticut; E. S. Higgins & Co., New York; Horner Bros., Pennsylvania ; Robert Huston, Penusylvania ; John Hamilton, Pennsylvania ; Wm. James Hogg, Massachusetts ; Henderson &. Keifer, Pennsylvania ; Henry Holmes, Pennsylvania; Irnis, Dietz & Magee, Pennsylvania; Judge Bros., Penusylvania; James Kitchenman, Pennsylvania ; Lowell Manufacturing Company, Massachusetts; T. L. Leedom & Co., Pennsylvania ; Montague & White, Pennsylvania; McCallnm, Cease & Sloan, Pennsylvania; Palmer Carpet Company, Massachusetts; Roxbury Carpet Company, Massachusetts ; Read Carpet Company, Connecticut ; Ross & Getty, Pennsylvania ; Stephen Sanford, New York ; Alex. Smith & Sons, Carpet Company, New York; Stimson Bros. & Keulbaum, Pennsylvania ; Schofield, Mason & Co., Pennsylvania; Smith, Arrive & Scott, Pennsylvania; W. & J. Sloane, New York; W. T. Smith, Pennsylvania; Joseph Taylor & Son, Pennsylvania; Thomas Taylor & Son, Pennsylvania ; Van Dermton & Horne, Pennsylvania ; J. Matthew Whittall, Massachusetts; Wm. Whittaker & Sous, Pennsylvania; James Lees & Sons, Pennsylvania. Note. — Certain printed extracts inclosed with the above will be transmitted sepa- rately to Congress. [Schofield, Mason & Co., carpets .] Philadelphia, November 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: We, as manufacturers of brussels carpet, do most earnestly pro- test against any change at present in the existing wool and woolen tariff or any other tariff revision. But should there be a change in the duty on wool, it is indispensable for the prosperity of our interests that the present system of compound duties be continued on carpets. Respectfully, yours, SCHOFIELD, MASON & CO. [Siegfried & Brandenstein, China mattings.'] San Francisco, September 3, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: Your circular, under date of the 1st ultimo, regarding the entry and appraisement of imported merchandise, to hand. Referring to ad valorem duties, we would say that we are of the opinion that a specific duty would be much more desirable. The parti- cular line which we handle of dutiable goods is China-straw mattings, and we would suggest that a specific duty be charged on rolls weighiug up to 50 pounds, then on rolls weighing from 50 to 70 pounds, from 70 to 90 pounds, and from 90 to 115 pounds, all matting to be considered 3 feet wide. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 117 Though we will not permit ourselves to make any charges against any one, we still think that some Chinese firms lower the value of the goods on their custom-house invoice, thereby being able to undersell any honest importer. By a specific duty this could be avoided. Yours, very truly, SIEGFEIED & BEANDENSTEIN. [The same. ] San Francisco, October 28, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir : We note that you wish us to give the rate of specific duty we would favor on China matting, and its ad valorem equivalent, and in answer would say that we think the following scale of duty . on straw mattings would be a just one. We refer to mattings 3 feet wide and 40 yards long, which is the usual size of rolls sent to this market. On mattings weighing 50 pounds or less, 80 cents per roll. On mattings weighing 51 pounds to 70 pounds, 90 cents. On mattings weighing 71 pounds to 90 pounds $1. On mattings weighing 91 pounds and over, $1.10. Or about an average equivalent of 25 per cent of the value. Yours, very truly, SIEGFEIED & BEANDENSTEIN. [Robert Foulds, toys. ] New York, July 27, 1885. Daniel Manning, Esq., Secretary of the Treasury. Dear Sir : In reply to yours of the 22d instant would say that it would be very difficult to arrange specific duties for the class of goods in which I deal. The present duties are from 15 to 40 per cent., mostly 35 per cent., and I do not think that a less duty or a* specific one would benefit my trade. I can afford to pay the present duties and get a profit on my sales. The only favor I ask is that all the trade pay the same duties. To illustrate the difficulty with special duties take the article of dolls. They cost from 5 cents a dozen to $25 and upwards. T see no way of laying a specific duty on them without being subject to the same risk of undervaluation that you now are. Ad valorem duties seem to me to be the most equitable mode of dis- tributing the tax, as the consumer then pays in proportion to the cost of the article which he purchases; rich and poor alike pay their propor- tion. Not so with many specific duties. The most important considera tion is the honest collection of all duties, and when the tariff is high the temptation to evade it is very great. My idea is that the tariff should be a moderate one, and that for revenue only, with as nearly free trade as is possible in raw material. Then, with our machinery and ingenuity, 118 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. we can compete for a part of the trade of the world. The damage allowance is one of the things from which the honest importer has suf- ferred much, and in my opinion should be abolished if it cannot be man- aged honestly. The charges for packing and boxing goods is another matter that needs looking into, as I am satisfied that there is a want of uniformity in deducting charges of this kiud, which on some kinds of goods are quite an item, especially where such article is packed in a separate box, some deducting only the cost of the outside wood box, while oth- ers deduct for all boxes. The present tariff is not a good one, and hope that whatever changes are made will improve it. Yours, truly, R. FOULDS. [Horatio G. Knight, buttons.'] New York, October 20, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Sir: At a meeting of manufacturers of buttons held in this city to- day, the undersigned (chairman and secretary of said meeting) were appointed a committee to answer your circular dated September 8, 1885, received by several of said manufacturers. There are about one hundred firms and corporations engaged in the manufacture of buttons in the United States, the value of whose prod- ucts exceeds $5,000,000 per annum. Various metals, horn, bone, India rubber, ivory, pearl, glass, wood, vegetable ivory, various composi- tions, and a great variety of textile fabrics are used in the manufacture of buttons, varying in size from oue-eighth of an inch to 1J inches in diameter, and varying in cost from a few cents to many dollars for the single gross of 144 buttons. The commercial or techhical designation of buttons is indicated by the raw materials of which they are composed, excepting those made from various textile fabrics, which come under the general designation of “covered buttons.” In some kinds of buttons raw material constitutes a small part and labor a large part of the cost of manufacture, labor, however, being a. considerable item in all. Many of the raw materials are imported, and while some are free of duty and others pay a low duty, some are sutyect to a high duty. The duty on imported buttons also varies greatly, affording ample protec- tion on some kinds, inadequate protection on some, and no protection on others. Two or three branches of this industry, in which labor con stitutes a large part of the cost of production, are at present languish- ing and apparently dying out. In the manufacture of most kinds of buttons the cheapness of labor in Europe is an element of great disadvantage to the American manu- facturers. By the foregoing statement of facts it will be seen that it is impossi- ble to give definite and satisfactory answers to the questions contained in your circular. While we favor specific duties in lieu of ad valorem upon imported articles to which the former can be properly applied, we fail to see how specific rates can be fixed upon this class of merchandise, nor is it pos- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 119 sible to state what specific rate would be equivalent to the average of present ad valorem rates. In conclusion we respectfully suggest that in a revision of the tariff it may be expedient to prescribe a small specific duty and a small ad valorem duty upon imported buttons, thus securing some security against undervaluation, and reasonable protection to American manu- facturers. Very respectfully, your obedient servants, HORATIO G. KNIGHT, Chairman. J. RICHARD SMITH, Secretary. [Rothschild Bros. & Co. , buttons. ] New York, October 12, 1885. Jon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. : Dear Sir: V our valued circular of August 1, requesting our views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff, &c., has had our serious at tention and thoughts ever since. A comprehensive reply was delayed in order to give us this season’s experience for our guide. We have now the honor to report to you, that in our opinion a specific duty on our goods is simply impossible, for the following reasons : A gross of metal buttons, costing in Europe 18J cents, weighs 14J ounces. A gross of metal buttons of finer finish, costing $9.60, weighs 11| ounces. A gross of common pearl buttons, costing 32 cents, weighs 6J ounces. A gross of fine pearl buttons, costing $18, weighs 10 ounces. A gross of common jet buttons, costing 24 cents, weighs 10 ounces. A gross of fine jet buttons, costing $9.60, weighs 9J ounces. This illustration could be carried on almost indefinitely, and no aver- age could be arrived at, in justice to the Government or the importer. It is the same in most other buttons. A simplification could only be arrived at by having a uniform duty on all buttons and button material for men’s and women’s use, and we consider 25 per cent, or 30 per cent, a fair tariff for Government, importer, and consumer. The great difficulty experienced heretofore has been the classification, which had to be left almost entirely with the examiner, and therefore the protests are so numerous, and in fact importers protest and appeal on nearly all their invoices. We have not, to our knowledge, suffered on account of undervalua- tion, and as far as we know this practice does not exist to any extent in our line of business. We shall take pleasure to assist the Department in its laudable ob- ject, and remain, Very respectfully, ROTHSCHILD BROS, & CO. 120 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [A. & D. Flesh, trimmings and buttons.'} New York, October 23, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D, G. : Dear Sir : Excuse delay in responding to your circular of August 1. Herewith the following facts about the classification of goods we im- port and are interested in : (1) Dress braids and bindings, manufactured of cotton or mohair, on which we have to pay 50 per cent, ad valorem and 30 cents per pound. Most of these braids are imported in black, which color admits an end less amount of charge in the dye stuff*, and this process can also be used in the colored goods of the same description. The duty amounts to nearly 100 per cent., which is far in excess of the protection we need. Our machinery here is far superior and the process of manufacturing- cheaper than abroad. Here is an example of an importation : We received per str. Fulda, as per invoice July 24, 1885, from Messrs. Kaiser & Dicke, Barmen, Germany, the largest manufacturers, a lot of braids to the value of 1,040.90 marks, equal to $391. The amount of duty paid on this impor- tation was $316.10, which, with commission, freight, insurance, ex- penses, interest, &c., runs up to nearly 100 per cent. We are accustomed to import these goods only small, and fill our orders here from the manufacturers’ agents, with only a small advance, or even at or below cost to us. (2) Trimmiugs pay 50 per cent, duty ad valorem, which is also exces- sive, as the state of the market shows. No appraiser can tell the value of a trimming, an article of fashion, where the taste and ingenuity of the manufacturer is paid. The auction-room and the prices therein re- alized show how we fare with our importation's. (3) Dress buttons. — Crochet covers for finishing here, and to be put into buttons, pay 10 per cent, duty ad valorem. Crochet buttons, finished, carded, and boxed in Europe, cost 50 per cent, duty ad valorem, which puts the importer out altogether. Steel buttons, it is just the reverse. We have to pay 45 per cent, ad valorem on steel points and trimmings; meanwhile the manufactured article steel button costs only 25 per cent. duty. We manulacture but- tons here, and this is against us. We pay the 45 per cent, duty on steel points and trimmings always under protest, and as the duty on steel nails is only 1J cents per pound, we hope to get our money refunded, as the tariff* was never intended to exact 45 per cent, duty on raw material and permit the manufactured article to come in at 25 per cent, ad valorem. Steel and steel plates cost only 10 per cent. duty. Metal buttons, the duty has never been decided upon, and 25 per cent, and 45 per cent, has been collected under a constant dispute be- tween importers, appraisers, and the authorities in Washington. De- cisions and instructions have been altered constantly, and we always paid 45 per cent, under protest. Allow me to call your attention to the slow settlement or payment of refunds coming to us. We have decisions in our favor and cannot col- lect the money. There is $1,000 due us at present, for which we signed vouchers end of July, and were promised the mouey in about thirty days. Yours, very respectfully, A. & D. FLESH, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 121 [Peter Wright & Sons, earthenware, pig iron, tinplate, salt, tfc.J Philadelphia, July 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Dear Sir : We are in receipt of your circular letter of 24tli instant, asking’ for our views upon matters connected with the tariff, &c. As this is a matter to which we have given attention, we take great pleasure in complying with your request. Our importations consist mainly of earthenware, iron (pig or spiegel), salt (in bags or bulk), tin plate, soda ash, and caustic soda. All but earthenware are of the nature of raw materials, i. e ., they require more or less manipulation or manufacture before they can be consumed ; and all but earthenware are subject to specific rates of duties. Earthenware: our imports are almost entirely of staple articles, which are governed by a gross price list and discounts, adopted by all manufacturers and which are but seldom changed, and are well known not only to those in the trade, but to customs officers and others. We use the term staple in contradistinction to fancy articles, brie a- brac, &c., the prices for which are almost as various as the manufactu- rers who make them. We tried some years ago to formulate a plan of specific duty, appli- cable to earthenware, but found it impossible, for, when we tried weight we found the highly wrought, expensive boxes used by the wealthy were far lighter than the same class of article made for con- sumption by the great masses of the people. When we tried measure- ment we found the same high class wares were less bulky than the medium and low priced. Either weight or measurement duty, if based upon the high class wares, would be manifestly unjust to the great body of consumers; and, if based upon low-cost goods, would be almost equivalent to letting in high class goods duty free. We are sure no fair specific duty can be applied to earthenware, which we regret, for we believe strongly in specific duties. In our opinion the evasions of duty, referred to in your letter, have been largely increased, if not altogether caused, by the practice which has obtained in the Treasury Department of either directly or indirectly compromising with dishonest importers ; and, so long as this practice continues will men be found willing to run the risk for the sake of the great gains it promises. So soon as it becomes known that those found guilty of deliberately defrauding the revenue wiil be punished to the full extent of the law, not only for the offense convicted of, but for back offenses, so soon will honest In er chants have a better chance to live and the Government to collect the revenue, whether specific or ad valorem. Frauds upon the revenue, while no doubt much greater in goods sub- ject to ad valorem duties, are not unknown in goods subject to specific duties, though in the latter case they require collusion with a weigher. Our opinion of the tariff on earthenware may be found in the writer’s testimony before the Tariff Commission at Buffalo, N. Y., August 30, 1882. We consider the late Tariff Commission left the whole question in a much more complicated and unsatisfactory condition than they found it, and that Congress by its hasty, ill-considered act of March 3, 1883, added to the objectionable work of the Tariff* Commission. The abolition of the duty on package charges, &c., was, in our opin- ion, the most creditable thing done in connection with the tariff, either 122 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. by the Tariff Commission or by the Congress which acted upon their report. We consider the manner of handling the tariff question, as well as of collecting the revenue for some years back, require radical changes, but as yourletter does not specifically ask for information under these heads, and they are large and important questions, we rest the answer here. Very respectfully, PETER WRIGHT & SONS. [Wahl Brothers, glue.'] Chicago, September 4, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, W ashington, D. C. : Sir : In response to your circular of July 19, the undersigned, manu- facturers of glue, would respectfully represent: That from 50 to 75 per cent, of the cost of glue is labor, which, as is well known, is much higher here than in foreign countries, while the material from which glue is made costs the American fully as much as it does the foreign manufacturer. There is now a duty on glue of 20 per cent, ad valorem, which we do not urge to be increased, although it shoulcj be done in the interest of home manufacturers, but we do urge , in the interest of the revenue as well as of all other interests con- cerned, that the duty be changed from “ ad valorem ” to u specific.” Glue is sold at from 10 to 20 cents per pound, according to quality, but even experts cannot decide as to its value except upon trial. Hence if the question of value is never raised at the custom house, but the glue weighed instead, not only will the collection of duties be simplified bui the inducement to undervaluation will be withdrawn, the revenue will not be reduced, and it will be much more satisfactory to manufacturers of glue as well as to honest importers. We would therefore recommend as a fair average a specific duty of 3 cents per pound on glue. Very respectfully, WAHL BROTHERS. From the best information we have we estimate the entire production of glue at 20,000,000 pounds and of gelatine at 200,000 pounds per annum. WAHL BROTHERS. [Tlio New England Monument Company, manufacturers of marble.] New York, August 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of United States Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular of July 31, regarding a change in existiug tarjff from ad valorem to specific duty, we will say that the only kind of granite which is imported into this country in considerable quantity is the Scotch granite, from Aberdeen and other parts of Scot- land, and this is rarely, if ever, imported in a rough or unfinished state. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 123 The principal demand for it is for all polished or partly hammered and partly polished work. The value of the rough material per foot is largely affected not only by the cubical contents of each piece but also by the iorm of each piece, as in the case of a square, thin base, a die which is nearly a cube, or a long, square shaft. The icorlc also varies largely in quantity as well as in kind, and from the plain to the ornate, and from that which can be done by machinery to that which can be done by hand only. The products of different quarries vary in value one from the other, so that a given design executed from different quarries varies in value. Under these circumstances it seems to us difficult, if not impossible, to fix a specific duty which will operate fairly in all cases. The system of sworn invoices seems best calculated to furnish a basis for duty. If in any case an undervaluation is suspected it will be easy to ob- tain from experts the value of any consignment or separate monument. The foregoing applies also to a certain extent to marble statues from Italy and elsewhere. Very respectfully yours, C. B. CANFIELD, For the New England Monument Company. f Vermont Marble Company, marble and manufactures of marble. ] Proctor, Butland County, Vermont, November 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Sir: Beferring to your printed circular of the 31st of July last, re- questing views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff, &c., as bearing upon the subject of the importation of Italian marble, we re- spectfully submit the following: So far as we are informed, the producers of American marble are agreed that the tariff upon imported marble should, so far as practicable, be a specific one; and we understand that the importers are also in favor of the “ specific ” principle. (See page 1650, vol. 2, of the “Beport of the Tariff Commission, 18S2,” where a committee representing the importers of marble in the block asked that, on that class of marble, the tariff might be changed from a “compound” rate to one entirely “specific.” Also, see vol. 1 of the same report, page CGG, where a like request was made by another committee representing the Boston importers.) Under our revenue laws imported marble is divided into three classes as follows : First. “Marble of all kinds in block, rough, or squared.” Second. “Veined marble, sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs and marble paving tiles.” Third. “All manufactures of marble not specially enumerated or provided for by this act.” There is also, properly, a Fourth, viz, “Statuary,” which is included in the division of “paint- ings, in oil or water colors, and statuary, not otherwise provided for.” Under the act of March 3, 1861, the duty on all these classes was ad valorem. By subsequent changes, and in particular by the act of March 124 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 3, 1883, the duty on the first and second classes is now specific, though the third class and statuary are still subject to ad valorem rates. We believe that the revenue system in the matter of the importation of marble would be simplified, incongruities removed, and the whole ren- dered more effective and uniform by the following changes or modifica- tions : (1) The substitution of at least a compound duty in place of the present ad valorem duty on the third class , or u all manufactures of marble not specially enumerated or provided for by this act v — We place this largely on the ground of the danger of fraud and undervaluation under a wholly ad valorem system. The reports of Special Treasury Agent N. W. Bing- ham, to which more particular reference will hereinafter be made, show that during the period between 1875 and 1870, which his investigations and reports cover only, there were large frauds perpetrated in the exe- cution of the ad valorem system of duty on marble; and the United States Treasury was defrauded of many thousands of dollars, and the American producers of marble were deprived of that protection which the law was intended to give them. In his report of April 30, 1879, although at that time he had no evidence of undervaluation in the case of importations of manufactured marble, except as to one firm, still he says : “ As to these, I am prepared to report that during the past four years, at least, the percentage of undervaluation has been very much larger than in the case of block marble.” We understand that later during the same year investigations were made in Boston by Mr. Bingham and others with reference to the un- dervaluation of an importation of manufactured marble imported in the bark John E. Chase, and that it fully corroborated his more gen oral report above. It might not be best in this class to change at once from a wholly ad valorem to a wholly specific duty, but we do think it can safely be changed to an equivalent u compound” one, with a view to making it entirely specific at some future time. This has been the his- tory of the change in the other two classes, and the early steps towards it were at the time considered more venturesome than even a complete change would now in this class. In the case of any modifications or changes that might be made in the tariff on marble as it now stands, we should especially deprecate any- thing which should tend to lower it from its present basis. Almost the entire value of marble in any shape in which it is brought into this country represents labor, and labor only. Its value is measured by the cost of the labor to blast the marble out of the mountain, prepare the blocks, move them to the seaport, and the subsequent work employed in its manufacture. The value of blocks as taken from American quar- ries is estimated to be 80 per cent labor, 15 per cent, machinery, and only 5 per cent, raw material in the earth. And the comparison is a great deal stronger in the case of Italian marble, since no machinery is used in the quarrying and manufacture of marble in Italy. See an article in the June Century, 1882, by Mr. R. W. Welch, late consul at Carrara. He says : No machinery of any kind is used in the Carrara quarries. The men of to day quarry after the fashion of their grandfathers. A common hand-drill, a few jugs of nitric acid, and a plentiful supply of gunpowder complete the outfit of the marble miners. * * * Having blasted the marble out of the mountain, the producer’s next step is to put the available blocks into tolerably regular shapes. This is done with the chisel and hammer by men who receive from 25 to 35 cents a day. So long as the policy of protection has any part in our revenue sys- tem, marble is a proper subject for it. It is wholly a matter of home as REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 125 opposed to foreign labor. (See pages 1553-1557 of Yol. 2 of “Report of Tariff Commission, 1882,” where eleven reasons are briefly given against any reduction in the tariff on marble.) We quote the following from Mr. Bingham’s report of April 30, 1879: In an annual statement of the bnsiuess of the firm in Carrara for 1877 and 1878, sent by Franklin Torry to Charles Torry, ho gave the quantity aud aggregate values of block marble shipped, which shows the cost (without adding anything for profit) of n arble on shipboard during those years to have been $1.1G per cubic feet. Mr. Franklin Torry was at this time, and had been for many years previous, the consul at Carrara, and had charge of the importations of the firm. He was therefore well qualified to know, and was writing to his brother and partner in interest, who was entitled to receive the exact truth. Elsewhere, in the same report, Mr. Bingham says: The average wholesale prices or market value on shipboard at the place and time of shipment, of the various cargoes of block ordinary marble that have been im- ported from Italy, during the past four years, have been from $1.22 to $1.28 per cubic foot. The difference only represents raw material and profit combined. There is no view entertained upon this subject so fallacious as to consider im- ported marble, even in its crudest form, as raw material. We would suggest that a specific duty of $2 per cubic foot inside case measure and 25 per cent, ad valorem might be about a fair equiva- lent. The returns which we have from the Bureau of Statistics do not show the number of feet of “ manufactures of marble,” which have been imported each year. We are confident, however, that less than this would not be an equivalent, and it might require as much as $3 per foot, and 25 per cent, additional. If you desire we should be glad to produce facts and statistics bearing on this particular point, but which are not accessible to us at the time of this writing. 2. Certain changes in the classification of statuary. — The distinction in favor of statuary, for the encouragement of higher art, as against other manufactures of marble, is perhaps a just one. The value of this class of importations is so largely dependent upon its artistic merits that we are inclined to think that an ad valorem duty is needed in this par- ticular case. But there are grave abuses in the classification which ought to be Corrected. (A) It has been ruled by the Treasury Department that the pedestals on which the statuary was set should be included with it and be en- tered at the reduced rate. This opens the door for fraud aud grave abuses, and investigation has shown it to exist. On this point we would respectfully call j our attention to the report of Special Agent Bingham on this particular subject, dated May 26, 1879, from which report it ap- pears that monuments and other work intended for cemetery use have been systematically imported along with statuary under the guise of pedestals aud have afterwards been sold separate from the statuary, to which they bear no real connection. Furthermore, we maintain that the classification, even if not abused, is an unjust oue. Whatever reasons may exist for a distinction in favor of statuary, on the point of art, apply to statuary purely and do not prevail in the case of the pedestal, or of anything else which might by possibility go with the statuary, but is not such a part of it as to be made ol the same ma- terial or to require the same skilled and professional workmanship. Reference need only be made to the statuary in the rotunda of the Cap- itol at Washington to illustrate this. The statues contributed by the States are mostly carved in Italian statuary marble, while the pedes- tals are generally native marble or granite. These so-called pedestals, 126 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. even when they are actually such, are not works of art or the results of professional skill, and when made of ordinary veined marble, as is usually the case, belong both in workmanship and quality of material to the class of “ manufactures of marble.” Accepting the decision of the Department, however, as a correct interpretation of the law as it stands, we respectfully recommend that the law be so changed as to rigidly exclude from this classification all pedestals and other manu- factures of marble which may accompany the statuary, if when taken alone and apart from it, they would not properly come under this class. (B) There is a large class of manufactures of marble, consisting of fig- ures cut in marble, usually small, made out of the ordinary veined marble, and by ordinary workmen or journeymen. They are used mostly to com- plete monuments or other cemetery work, and come in direct competition, not with our American sculptors’ studios, but with marble work shops, and have an importance far out of proportion to the rest of the monument in determining the sale of cemetery work. As made by the cheap labor of Italy, and freighted into New York and other ports at rates of freight no larger thau from our own quarries; if, then, thej r can be entered at the reduced statuary rates, their net cost to importers is so low com- pared with the similar results of our more expensive home labor that oftentimes it will more than neutralize whatever protection the law may have intended to give on the balance of the monument. We have rea- son to believe, and do believe, that mauy figures such as described are being wrongfully entered and classed as statuary to the great injury and detriment of home manufactures and our American workmen, whether they be workers of American or Italian marble. In this connection, see the report of Special Agent Bingham, of May 20, 1879. As a measure for restricting this abuse we recommend that the definition of statuary, as it occurs in the revenue laws, and which is as follows : “But the term statuary, as used iu tbe laws now in force imposing duties on foreign importations, shall be understood to include professional productions of a statuary or of a sculptor only,” be amended by adding the follow- ing, “which are made or carved iu what is know to the trade as statu- ary marble.” We would respectfully submit, however, that such a restriction or limitation might be made by a ruling of the Department as being in conformity with the spirit of the definition and of the law, since the professional productions of a statuary ora sculptor, if executed in Italian marble, will only be executed in this kind. Such a ruling would be a simple way to accomplish something towards repressing this abuse. 3. It also appears from Mr. Bingham’s report of April 30, 1879, that the reduction of Italian palms to feet in the entry at the port of Boston has been done generally by multiplying by 512 instead of 555.5, thereby making the feet less than the true quantity. He also says, “ I have no doubt that many thousands of dollars have been lost by the Government iu the matter of quantity as well as value.” Whether this abuse has been corrected we do not understand, but we would recommend that in the rules for the guidance of custom-house officers they should be in- structed to make this reduction on such a uniform basis as is found by the investigations of the Department to be accurate. Our recommendations, therefore, briefly are: (1) The substitution of an equivalent compound duty for the present ad valorem duty on that class of marble designated u All manufactures of marble not specially enumerated or provided for by this act.” (2) The rigid exclusion by law from the class of statuary of pedestals and other manufactures of marble which may accompany the statuary REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 127 if when taken alone and apart from it they would not properly be classed as statuary. (3) A law or ruling of the Department that the class “ statuary ” shall only include work that is executed in statuary marble. (4) A proper reduction of the Italian palms to feet. In the foregoing we have made frequent references to the reports of Special Agent Bingham, which we were permitted to examine through the courtesy of your Department. (See letter to Mr. Bedfield Proctor, Proctor, Vt., October 6, 1885, 6512 O, signed by the Hon. Chas. E. Coon, Assistant Secretary.) VVe have the honor to be your obedient servants, Vermont Marble Company, By BEDFIELD PBOCTOB, President. (The same.) Proctor, Vt., November 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir : ****** # Since mailing you our letter, above referred to, we have learned that at the port of Boston, at least, the Italian palm is reduced to feet by multiplying by 555.5. If this practice be general, the occasion for the third division of our letter is removed. And we are also informed that your Department has limited or ex- plained its decision No. 22G4, classing pedestals with statuary, in a similar line to that suggested in part “ A” of the second division of our letter. (See letter to collector of customs, New York, October 15, 1879.) We have the honor to be your obedient servants, Vermont Marble Company, By BEDFIELD PBOCTOB, President. [W. K. Carson & Co., sugar . ] Baltimore, July 31, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury Department, Washington , I). G. : Sir : In response to your circular dated July 24, 1885, we reply that at present none of the goods in the importation of which we are inter- ested are liable to an ad valorem duty. Such experience as we have had in former years leads us to express our opinion emphatically against ad valorem as compared with specific duties. The former (ad valorem) may theoretically seem more equable, but in practice proves a constant temptation to fraud and therefore re- sult in injustice. We take advantage of your inquiry to express the hope that a sim- pler system be devised for levying and collecting duties on sugars. At present these have to be compared for color with the u Dutch standards” and then tested for saccharine strength by polariscope; 128 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. bulk tests requiring training and skill in tkeir application and strict integrity on the part of both appraisers and samplers. We include the latter because generally from the same package of sugar widely differing samples may be drawn. To us it appears that a more fair and just method would be to exact one specific rate per pound for all grades of sugars. With such a simplification of duties It would be possible for many to engage in trade in this article who have abandoned it owing to the com- plexities of the tariff’ and its strong bias in favor of the few men who control the refineries on the Atlantic coast. We remain, verv respectfully, your friends, W. K. CARSON & CO. [McKean, Borie & Co., sugar . ] Philadelphia, July 25, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C.: Sir : We have the honor to acknowledge rtceipt of your communica- tion of 24th instant, on the subject of ad valorem and specific duties, &c. We believe that the present tariff on foreign raw sugars — the only article in whose importation we are at present largely concerned — meets as nearly as is necessary for commerce and manufacture the condition of specific duties assimilated to ad valorem rates. There are some small inequalities, which, however, are not an obstacle to any branch of the sugar interest in this country, and the remedy for which might add trivial complications to the broad and simple system now in vogue. With occasional exceptions of comparative unimportance, such as we refer to, the Government has the advantage of collecting its sugar duties by the application of the same principles which govern buyers and sellers of the article in arriving at value, and in the exceptional cases the Government is the gainer, for the reason that while the Gov- ernment test applies with equal force to all classes of sugar, the article is never sold in the market for more than its apparent value, but owing to inherent qualities not detected by the polariscope, it is sometimes sold for less. Taking into consideration the Government, the merchant, and the manufacturer, we believe that the present system of collecting revenue from sugar is just, and approaches very closely to a coincidence of spe- cific with ad valorem rates. Replying to a suggestion found in your communication, we have the honor to say that we believ'e our firm to have suffered very heavily in the past from evasions of the tariff on sugar, especially under a classi- fication by color and where importations have been landed on refiners’ own wharves at the various ports of Inanufacture. Without intending to cast an imputation on honorable competitors in business, we think it proper to take advantage of the present opportunity to say that it is of vital interest to us that every safeguard should be thrown about the Government weighers and samplers of sugars landed in bond on refin- ers’ wharves or elsewhere for refiners’ account, and in saying this we do not intend to reflect on Government officials. Assuming polariza- tion to be honestly done, failure in the proper collection of sugar duties could only come from dishonest weighing and sampling. We feel jus- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 129 titled on this occasion in asking for the constant attention of the De- partment to these points, for such u evasions of the tariff’ 7 have been notorious in the past to our great injury in business and Government loss. Respectfully, McKEAN, BORIE & CO., Per MARSHALL. [George S. Hunt & Co., sugar.'] Portland, Me., July 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Sir: Your circular letter dated 28th instant is received, but, we re- gret to say, that as our importations consist wholly of sugar and molas- ses, under specific rates of duty, we are unable to make any serviceable suggestions regarding the ad valorem system. But we will avail of this opportunity to say that we not only think the present schedule of sugar duties excessive, but that it is very unjust to the importer, in that a full T ^o cent per pound is assessed for even the smallest fraction above the even degree of polarization. We thiuk it would be more equitable if the T -Jo cent should not be assessed unless the fraction of a degree exceeds one-half. We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants, GEORGE S. HUNT & CO. [Harrison, Havemeyer & Co., sugar.] Philadelphia, September 21, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Sir: In response to your communication dated July 24, we beg to say that the duties at present upon imported sugars, being specific in form and ad valorem in effect, would seem, to our minds, to combine the simplicity of the specific with the merits of the ad valorem system with- out incurring objections properly urged against duties which are purely ad valorem. We may add, that if any change were to be made from the existing schedule for sugar duties, the general principles now applying in said schedule should be adhered to, we think, whether the change be to a lower or a higher duty. We would particularly ask your reference to a letter addressed by us to the Department on 24th November, 1884 (copy herewith), in regard to maintaining the recognized dividing line of No. 13 Dutch standard, between refined sugars and the raw material. Under the existing schedule for sugars below No. 13 D. S., with 1.40 cents per pound for the starting point of 75 degrees polarization, .04 cent is added for each degree upward \ so, if the tariff on sugar were lowered 25 per cent, to 1.05 cents per pound for 75 degrees, then .03 cent per degree of polarization above 75 degrees should be the rate of pro- gression, if the principles now in force are adhered to in every respect, S. Ex. 72 9 130 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Tn like manner tbe existing color lines for grades above No. 13 D. S. with their relative duty covering foreign refined sugars should be ad- hered to. But we are clearly of the opinion that the best of all schedules for sugar would be on the following basis, which can, in case of need, be lowered or raised by any given percentage : Grades not above No. 13 D. S. in color: Testing 75 degrees or less, 1.25 cents per pound, plus .05 cent for each degree above 75 degrees. Grades above No. 13 D. S. in color : No. 13 to 16 D. S., at 2§ cents per pound j No. 16 to 20 D. S., at 3 cents per pound $ above No. 20 D. S., at 3£ cents per pound. This commends itself especially for the reason that the sugars of lower polarization are pre-eminently the raw material upon which but little labor has been expended abroad, and upon which, therefore, the maxi- mum of labor, skill, and expenditure is called for here in refining. Note, also, that any reduction in rates for grades above No. 13 D. §. ought properly to equal the reduction from the average for raw sugars, which is generally taken to be on 90-degree test. For example, lower- ing the rate of 2 cents per pound for 90 degrees by 20 per cent., a re- duction of .40 cent per pound should be made on the grades above No. 13 D. S., whereby No. 13 to 16, at 2| cents less .40 cent, becomes 2.35 ; No. 16 to 20, at 3 cents less .40 cent, becomes 2.60 ; above No. 20, at 3J cents less .40 cent, becomes 3.10. This should be borne in mind in view of the ratio of expenses of re- fining, which, if duties were materially lowered, would not fairly be rep^ resented by simple percentage. To indicate at a glance the relative rates of duty which we believe are properly applicable to different grades of sugar we inclose tabulated memoranda. Very respectfully, HAEEISON, HAVEMEYER & GO. Existing tariff on sugars. Grades not above No. 13 D. S. in color: Testing 75° 1.40 Testing 76° 1. 44 Testing 77° 1. 48 Testing 78° 1. 52 Testing 79° 1.56 Testing 80° 1. CO Testing 81° 1. 64 Testing 82° 1. 68 Testing 83° 1. 72 Testing 84° 1.76 Testing 85° 1. 80 Testing 86° 1. 84 Testing 87° 1.88 Testing 88° 1.92 Testing 89° 1.96 Testing 90° 2. 00 Testing 91° 2.04 Testing 92°.. 2.08 Testing 93° 2. 12 Testing 94° 2.16 Testing 95° 2. 20 Testing 96° : 2. 24 Testing 97° 2.28 Testing 98° 2.32 Testing 99° 2. 36 Testing 100° 2. 40 Grades above No. 13 D. S. in color : V/tB* pel 1U. No. 13 to 16 2* No'. 16 to 20 3 Above No. 20 3^ REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 131 Same schedule reduced 25 per cent. Grades not above No. 13 D. S. in color: Testing 75° Testing 76° .... Testing 77° Testing 78° Testing 79° Testing 80° Testing 81° Testing 82° Testing 83° Testing 84° Testing 85° Testing 86°.... « Testing 87° 1.05 1.08 1.11 1. 14 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41 Testing 88° . Testing 89°. Testing 90° . Testing 91° . Testing 92°.. Testing 93° . Testing 94°. Testing 95° . Testing 96°. Testing 97° . Testing 98°. Testing 99° . Testing 100° Grades above No. 13 D. S. in color : No. 13 to 16. No. 16 to 20 . Above No. 20 1.44 1.47 1.50 1.53 1.56 1.59 1.62 1.65 1.68 1.71 1.74 1.77 1.80 Cts. per lb. .... 2 $ .... 2 * .... Suggested basis for sugar schedule. Grades not above No. 13 D. S. in color : Testing 75°. Testing 76° Testing 77° Testing 78°. Testing 79° Testing 80°. Testing 81° Testing 82° Testing 83° Testing 84° Testing 85° Testing 86° Testing 87° 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 Testing 88° . . Testing 89°.. Testing 90° . Testing 91°. Testing 92°.. Testing 93° . . Testing 94° . . Testing 95° . Testing 96° . Testing 97°.. Testing 98°. Testing 99° . Testing 100° Grades above No. 13 D. S. in color : No. 13 to 16.. No. 16 to 20 . Above No. 20 1.90 1.95 2. 00 2.05 2. 10 2. 15 2. 20 2.25 2. 30 2. 35 2. 40 2. 45 2. 50 Cts. per lb. .... 2f 3 .... 3* Same schedule reduced 20 per cent. Grades not above No. 13 D. S. in color: Testing 75° Testing 76° Testing 77° Testing 78° Testing 79° Testing 80° Testing 81° Testing 82° Testing 83° Testing 84° Testing 85° Testing 86° Testing 87° 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.16 1.20 1.24 1.28 1.32 1.36 1.40 1.44 1.48 Testing 88° . Testing 89° . Testing 90° . Testing 91° . Testing 92° . Testing 93° . Testing 94° . Testing 95° Testing 96° . Testing 97°. Testing 98°. Testing 99°. Testing 100° Grades above No. 13 D. S. in color : 1.52 1.56 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.88 1.92 1.96 2. 00 Cts. per lb. ... 2. 35 ... 2.60 ... 3.10 No. 13 to 16.. No. 16 to 20 . . Above No. 20 132 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (Inclosure.) November 24, 1884. Hon. Hugh McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. : Sir : In common with every one else engaged in the business of sugar refining in this country, we are feeling greatly concerned at the provision of certain commercial treaties lately negotiated, wherein No. 16 Dutch standard is made the dividing line for duty classification of foreign sugars. The Mexican, the Santo Domingo, and the Spanish treaties, all, we believe, propose to admit free of duty sugars not above No. 16 Dutch standard in color. These treaties, it is true, are not yet ratified. In view, however, of the serious bearing upon so extensive an industry as sugar refining in this country, we feel ex- tremely anxious at any attempt to confuse or obliterate the well-established line of separation between refined sugar and the raw material. You are aware of the circumstances under which No. 13 Dutch standard was deter mined as the true dividing line at the last revision of the tariff ; and we believe you well know of the satisfactory working of that feature of the schedule still in force for sugar duties. We are led, therefore, to ask very earnestly your attention to this subject, believing, as we do, that you will agree with us in recognizing the fact that No. 13 Dutch standard should be retained as the dividing line under any or all changes of the tariff likely to be suggested to the Department or to Congress. While the machinery, tools, &c., of American refiners are taxed it will not be diffi- cult to perceive why we, with our extensive refineries, newly rebuilt, and a numerous force of employes actively at work, are naturally solicitous that the line between the product of foreign manufactories and our own raw material should be correctly and distinctly defined in every scheme of tariff legislation. Otherwise, the discrimination against us becomes at once unjust and oppressive. We are, sir, very respectfully, . HARRISON, HAYEMEYER & CO. [L. W. Redington, sugars.'] Rutland, Vt., November 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : I beg that you will pardon me for trespassing on your valuable time, but my apology for taking this liberty is your recent cir- cular requesting information on matters relating to our tariff laws, in which I am, and for years have been, intensely interested. I have long made them a study, and during the “campaign” last autumn devoted a large portion of my time to discussion of the tariff, particularly in Troy, NT. Y., where I delivered three speeches on different occasions. Es- pecially have I for years been greatly interested in our sugar tariff, as regards establishing a uniform rate of duty up to a point which will preclude all possibility of fraud or evasion. The monstrous public abuses and evils which have been engendered by the long-continued practice of frauds in the importations of raw sugars are the natural results of our antiquated and unjust tariff, ex- ecutive mal administration of the customs service, and unprincipled trade combinations; and the only remedy for such complicated evils, in my humble opinion and as an on looker entirely disinterested in the matter except as a suffering consumer and a heavily- taxed citizen, is for Congress to enact such laws as will render their continuance impos- sible under any administration. Hence, I cannot refrain from expressing my views on the subject while inclosing to you a memorial which was sent to me at the time, and which I feel quite sure will commend itself to your most earnest consideration on account of the unassailable Diets aud unanswerable arguments therein presented. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 133 Although this memorial was addressed to the Committee of Ways and Means of the Forty-sixth Congress, the facts and arguments it embodies have precisely the same force and weight to-day that they had then, for the sugar tariff and the sugar question generally, and all the objectionable and noxious features attached to them have not changed one iota within the past five years, and, as one of the largest sugar-con- suming people in the world, we continue to pay the largest price for it, while an odious and unscrupulous monopoly of sugar refiners, co-operat- ing with a handful of Louisiana planters, remain iu almost absolute control of the whole sugar trade of this vast country, extorting from its people untold millions of dollars annually. The present tariff was enacted, as this u memorial” gives clearly to understand, and it cannot be doubted, to protect the interest of three or four of our leading refiners (and of as many more money-lenders) of New York City, whose names are conspicuous by their absence in the said “ memorial.” These gentlemen, it would appear, have had the shaping of the schedule of duties to suit their own interests and have been bold enough to openly boast of the fact among their numerous friends, and it behooves me to tell you, sir, that these same men make it no secret now in New York that they are prepared to send to Wash- ington their powerful “ lobby,” backed by that “ subtle influence ” they so well know how to wield, in order to prevent all legislation on sugars during the coming session of Congress. Whenever any revision of the tariff has been suggested, their efforts have been directed to create the impression that any change in the sugar schedule based on a uniform rate was solely in the interest of the Cuban planters, and so far has this been carried that it would seem to be their aim and desire so to arrange the tariff as to exclude all the sugars from that island, which now sup- plies us with nearly half of all the sugars that we need, in order to stim- ulate the production of and the trade with other countries, producing the lowest grade of sugars known to commerce, and which sugars con- stitute the bulk of their own importations. To pretend, as they do, that a uniform rate of duty would exclude all low grades, and thereby affect their interests, is, to say the least, simply absurd. The present discrim- inating duties in favor of these low grades have had the effect to put a premium on them where they are produced, and, as the demand for im- portation to this country now runs entirely on these inferior qualities, their values have naturally been enhanced. Under a uniform rate it can with perfect confidence be predicted that these low grades of sugar will .seek their proper relative price in the producing countries, and Ameri- can importers, whether they be refiners or traders, will get them as much cheaper as the additional duties amount to. In other words, a uniform tariff would simply reduce their price in the markets of pro- duction to American buyers, and, to a degree, induce foreign producers to make a cleaner and purer sugar, in order to obtain better prices for their product. The advocates of a uniform tariff have strenuously op- posed the present system, and insisted that the only burden the Govern- ment should impose upon that vast commercial interest should be a sim- ple form of tariff which will yield the revenue absolutely necessary, and no more, without embarrassing the interests of those to whom it looks for this proportion of its income. This will be accomplished partially if the recommendations urgently made in the said “memorial” are acted upon by the Government ; anil if Congress were to make it one rate of duty on all raw sugars not above No. 16 , Dutch standard, all difficulty would unquestionably be removed. 134 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The practical effect of the existing tariff, as it has repeatedly been shown, is to exclude all sugars not suitable for refining purposes. Official statistics, which are at your command, will clearly show you likewise that the average rate of duty paid is but a trifle above the lowest rate of duty of the existing tariff. This proves, therefore, very conclusively, that no sugars are imported but what have to go through the refiners’ hands, and consequently no sugars can be distributed but what the same refiners have for sale; hence the whole sugar trade of the country, as I have already stated, is forced through this one chan- nel, and every consumer has to pay tribute to the refiners as well as a burdensome tax to the Government. Furthermore, under a special privilege granted by the Treasury Department, all the sugars imported by the refiners (one of whom, as reference to custom-house entries will prove, imports about half of all the sugars that annually enter the port of New York) go directly to their private docks connected with their refineries, where no time is lost in u dumping” them, as it is called. The only custom-house officers admitted on the refiners’ docks are two of the lowest-paid officers in the public service, one in the capacity of sampler and the other as weigh-master. These poorly paid men, who are virtually the collectors of duties, are expected by the Government to be endowed with all the honesty and integrity, the total absence of which virtues has characterized the dealings with the custom-house of these very refiners, who have been and still are the champions and advocates of the present sugar tariff. Why such a privilege is granted to the sugar refiners, and such an exception made for their especial ben- efit, is a matter for which I can find no satisfactory explanation; nor can I find any good reason why importations of dry goods and passen- gers’ luggage are treated with such suspicious harshness and severity, while immense and valuable cargoes of raw sugars go directly into pri- vate control and the duties thereon virtually put under the same control, Such an arbitrary course, whether intended for fraudulent ends or not. must of necessity beget fraud. Practicable remedies for these abuses and evils, and their application, have at length become an imperative necessity in order to protect the public from deleterious adulterations, and the customs revenue from serious loss by evasion of duty on imports of raw and excessive bounty paid on exports of refined sugars. It is practicable, equitable, and safe, for the purposes named, to adopt a uniform specific rate of duty upon all grades of sugar imported “ up to a point,” as Mr. Sherman wrote to Mr. Burchard on the 18th of February, 1879, “ which will exclude temptation either to color sugar for the purpose of reducing the duty, or commit fraud by means of sampling and classification” ; and also to establish a uniform specific drawback based on actual duty paid, regardless of grade and cargo identity, upon all refined sugars exported from the United States which are the actual product of the sugar refineries. It is generally conceded by experts among those engaged in the sugar trade of this country, that No. 10 D. S. is the point that divides the raw from the refined article, so far, at least, as consumption is concerned. Such reforms, if adopted, will immediately remove the means of, as well as the incentives to, fraud. They will put all refiners, importers, and traders upon au equality, and relieve them at the same time from unnecessary annoyance. They will diminish the work and expense of collecting the customs. They will give a steady inducement to those heartless adulterators among our refiners and Louisiana planters to produce a purer article. And, finally, they will give to our 55,000,000 of consumers a strong, honest sugar. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 135 It is very plain that a high and discriminating duty on sugars is asked lor by those only who wish to perpetuate a gross and shameful outrage, and it remains to.be seen whether in the estimate of Congress the in- terests of this small class are paramount to the interests of the nation and its millions of citizens. And now, sir, although the foregoing may not receive nor merit your perusal, I have nevertheless the satisfaction of knowing that I have, at any rate, only assumed the prerogative of every citizen of this free country (so often assumed by our citizens in general) of thrusting my little mite into the midst of public affairs for the purpose and in the hope of influencing the Government in enacting and maintaining certain laws which the undersigned, at least, considers the best for the interests of our common people and good government for mankind. I beg to remain, sir, with great respect, Your obedient and humble servant, L. W. EDDINGTON. Note. — The inclosure referred to in this letter is separately transmitted to Congress. [Hiram Sibley & Co., seeds. ] Chicago, III., July 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : Your circular letter under date of July 27 is received. The only goods we import are beans lor seeding purposes ; we buy them c. i. f., IN’. Y. We would say that as there is 10 per cent, difference of duties between beans for seed and beans for consumption, the seller is sure to take the cheaper duty, and ship accordingly, clearly evading the tariff laws. We give this only as an instance to indicate that we are of opinion that a specific duty is the simplest, and carries with it less inducement for dishonest practices. Yours, respectfully, HIEAM SIBLEY & CO., Per F. A. W ABNER, Manager. [The same.] Office of Hiram Sibley, Rochester , N. Y., October 26, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary , Washington , jD. C. : Dear Sir : Your circular letter addressed to Hiram Sibley & Co., Chicago, 111., and yours of October 19, have been referred to me here. We import peas, beans, garden and flower seeds. The duties on peas and beans should be specific and applicable to all alike, whether for seed or consumption. Flower seeds should be duty free, as they do not come in competition with the American grower to any extent. 136 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Tlie principal frauds that have come under my observation arise from undervaluation and entering for consumption and selling for seed in competition with the honest importer. Specific duties, whenever possible, are to be preferred in all cases. With great respect, vour obedient servant, HIRAM SIBLEY & CO. [Henry A. Dreer, seeds and plants.'] Philadelphia, October 24, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , _D. 0. : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular letter of July 24, iu reference to specific against ad valorem duties on imported merchandise, we beg leave to reply as follows : For the simplification and equalization of the tariff on seeds , bulbs, plants, immortelles , and grasses , we would recommend placing them all on the free list, as is the case at present with plants. Agriculture, horticulture, aud kindred interests, when followed to their highest perfection, require atmospheric and climatic conditions and soils 4o produce a perfect development. We have in this country as great a range and as favorable climates and soils as anywhere in the world, and we are now larger producers of American than consumers of imported seeds, and export many varieties that succeed better here than in Europe. We are opposed to duties being levied on this class of mer- chandise, for the following reasons : (1) It is oppressive to the honest importer, because agents of foreign houses find it possible to import at nominal cost of production or on false invoices. (2) It is impossible to detect the difference between a lot of cauli- flower seed at 20s. and cabbage seed at 2s. per pound, or Dutch hyacinth bulbs, named at $8 per 100, and mixed at $2 per 100, thus opening a field for dishonest importers to drive out the legitimate merchants. We therefore pray that the duties be removed on all the articles underscored above [in italics], and remain, Very respectfully, yours, HENRY A. DREER. [James Vick, seeds and plants.] Rochester, N. Y., August 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir : Since receiving your favor of 27th ultimo regardingduties, specific or ad valorem, I have done considerable thinking on the subject, aud must confess it is a .very hard problem to solve. I am not surprised to learn “ that the tariff laws are largely evaded by undervaluation,” as the Government has done a great deal towards ed- ucating importers to think that the oath taken when entering goods is of little value j for instance, if an importer should purchase a certain lot of peas in Canada at 90 cents per bushel, he would be obliged to swear REVISION OF THE TARIFF. .137 the actual cost of the peas was $1.50 or $2 per bushel or lose the whole shipment. Government inspectors say that importers must keep posted as to market values and not make purchases for less. Naturally enough one would think if it is not wrong to swear falsely against an importer’s in- terest it certainly could not be to swear falsely in his favor. The price of seeds differ so widely that it is a very simple matter to undervalue them ; for instance, cauliflower is worth from 50 cents to $50 per pound ; the variety that costs $50 could be imported as a cheap variety, and it would be impossible to tell the difference in the seeds. On one invoice of seed we imported this year, amounting to £45 16s. 3$. sterling, the duties averaged 1J cents per pound on the dutiable seeds, while on another invoice, amounting to £295 13s. 5d. sterling the duty averaged a trifle over 2 cents per pound on the dutiable seed. We pay from less than 1 cent per pound to nearly $5 per pound duties on seed. Of course we import but very little of the higher price and tons of the cheaper. After looking into these figures, have come to the con- clusion that perhaps it would be better to have a specific duty, as there would be less temptation to undervalue; and if such change is made would say that about 2 cents (not more) would be a fair average duty per pound. It would be useless to attempt to make a specific duty on one family of seeds and different rate ou another family, as the seeds of many fami- lies so closely resemble each other. We have suffered most u injury on account of evasion of the tariff” from there being one duty of 20 per cent, on peas for seed and another of 10 cents per bushel on peas for consumption. No doubt large quan- tities are imported by commission men for consumption and afterwards sold to seedsmen. Yours, &c., JAMES TICK. [J. Bolgiano & Son, seeds.'] Baltimore, August 18, 1885. Mr. Daniel Manning: Dear Sir : Specific duties are simplest, hence best. Ignorance, self interest, ambiguity, alike confuse and misapply tariff. Few plain classifications protect the honest importer and bind alike everywhere and everybody. Decisions of Department often make law, rather than interpret law. Under the same law peas are construed to have two classifications and two duties. The identical peas are brought from Canada by some importers at 10 per cent., and others pay 20 per cent. This double clas- sification is unknown to the law. The decision is arbitrary. It makes law. This works and has worked into the hands of the disreputable, to the hurt of honest importers and to the injury of the pea-growing interest of Northern New York. According to the plain interpretation of the law the only duty on peas is 20 per cent, or nothing. Classification of peas under “vegetable” is misconstruction without plausible excuse. The same peas classed as vegetable, 10 per cent., may be used for seed, and parties are now arranging to bring them across 138 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. the frontier soon this year at 10 per cent., who will use them as seed- peas, and who did bring them over free of duty as seed-peas under a previous arbitrary Department decision. These parties shift about with every Department decision. In response to your circular dated July 24, 1885. , Very truly, J. BOLGIANO & SON. [Mermod & Jaccard Jewelry Company, jewelry.'] Saint Louis, Mo., August 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury Department , Washington , D. C. : Sir : The circular of the Treasury Department in reference to the cus- tom-revenue system is received. Our principal importations being in diamonds, watches, French clocks, and fine art articles for house ornamentation, we do not see how they could be taxed otherwise than ad valorem. There is such a great differ- ence between the value of a cheap article and that of a fine one in the same class of goods that the specific-duty principle could not be applied. For this class of goods the ad valorem duties in our judgment is the easiest to apply and the most in accord with justice. Though we have no doubt that some of the goods of this class have been imported undervalued, we cannot tell how much injury the regular trade may have suffered, but the specific-duty principle would not pre- vent it. Very respectfully, Mermod & Jaccard Jewelry Co., By D. C. JACCABD. Custom-House, New Orleans, La., Collectors Office , August 15, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith letters from the follow- ing merchants of New Orleans, sent to this office in response to Depart- ment’s circular letter requesting their views in regard to simplifying the tariff : A. B. Griswold & Company, importers of jewelry, &c. ; Koch & Dreyfus, importers of jewelry, &c.; S. Oteri, importer of tropical fruits. Very respectfully, B. F. JONAS, ' . Collector. [A. B. Griswold & Company, watches and jewelry.] B. F. Jonas, Esq., Collector of the Port: New Orleans, ,Ju ly 29, 1885. Dear Sir: We have received through you the circular of Treasurer of the United States concerning tariff, &c. We import so very little that onr opinions are not enti- tled to consideration REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 189 It seems to us impossible to have any other than an ad valorem duty on jewelry. You cannot put the same amount of duty on a diamond worth $1 and on another worth $50,000. We do not import diamonds at all, but we think that the tariff (10 per cent.) on them is too high. It offers a premium on smuggling, and is hard on honest importers. The profit is little over 10 per cent., and the smuggler can therefore sell at the cost price of the honest man, and the latter is at a disadvantage. If the duty were 5 per cent, the probability of smuggling would be decreased. All duties should be gradually decreased ; we are in favor of a protective tariff, but we do not need so high a tariff’ now as when our manufactures were in their in- fancy. Yours, truly, A. B. GRISWOLD & CO. [Koch & Dreyfus, jewelry .] New Orleans, August 12, 1885. B. F. Jonas, Esq., Collector, ' ’New Orleans, La. : Dear Sir : We acknowledge receipt of yours of 27thultimo, inclosing letter of inquiry from Secretary of Treasury Department, and beg to state in regard to same that our importations of foreign-made goods amount to but a very small share of our general business, and consist solely of watchmakers’ and jewelers’ tools and materials and silk watch guards. The adoption of a specific duty, we think, would work to advantage in preventing undervaluation on such articles as watch glasses, pliers, draw-plates, punches, &c., while on more delicate tools and materials none but an ad valorem duty can give satisfactory returns. None of the watch-guards are made up purely of cot- ton, always containing some silk and occasionally made up of mohair, and should, consequently, be entered as such. Undervaluation is very easily done on this article, and a specific duty would be far better. We have discontinued the importation of watches since three years ago, and are dealing entirely, now, with American manu- facturers of these goods, which policy is being rapidly carried out by most every im- porter of this article of trade. A specific duty on watches is not feasible, as a move- ment of a very fine grade, costing, perhaps, 300 francs, can be putin a cheap case (2 francs) and when in this country be put in a gold case, and the duty paid thereon would be no more than a complete watch costing in Switzerland 10 francs. Swiss watches and silk guards have often been sold at almost what they could be bought for in Europe, and must evidently have been brought into this country on a much un- dervalued invoice. American manufacturers in all lines of goods we enumerated, excepting probably watch glasses and perhaps silk guards, are making such rapid progress that in ten, and possibly five, years hence we will get our entire supply of goods from the home manufacturers. Very respectfully, yours, KOCH & DREYFUS. [S. Oteri, green fruit.'] New Orleans, July 29, 1885. B. F. Jonas, Esq., Collector of Customs , Port of New Orleans : Sir: Replying to your letter of the 27th instant, I beg to say that the business I am engaged in, to wit, the importation of tropical fruit, is not subjected to any ad valorem duty, and consequently not directly affected. The system of collecting revenues on the ad valorem plan, in my estimation, is erroneous, and fraud cannot be prevented in the valuation or appraisement of such goods. I cannot suggest any remedy, however, not being familiar with the workings of the Treasury Department nor the established rules for the collection of customs duties. Respectfully submitted. S. OTERI. 140 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [M. J. Paillard & Co., musical boxes."] New York, September 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir: Your circular letter of July 31 was received in due time and its contents noted with great satisfaction. We sincerely hope that you may be able to find a remedy to frustrate the many efforts at evasion of the tariff that we are morally convinced are continually made by importers handling our goods. After having given this matter our undivided attention and examined it in all its phases, we have come to the conclusion that the simplest and most practical manner in which to levy the duties on u musical boxes” would be by the weight. Inclosed we are pleased to hand you a schedule of duties paid by us within the last few months, by which you will see that if the duties had been paid on the gross weight (including cases and packing) at the rate of 10 cents per pound the difference in our favor would have been less than 5 per cent, on the actual duties of 25 per cent, paid ad valorem. We also find that if the duties were levied at the rate of 12J cents per pound on the net weight of musical boxes it would amount to about the same as 10 cents per pound on the gross weight. We therefore think that if this rate of 12 J cents per pound on the net weight were accepted in substitu- tion to the present one of 25 per cent, ad valorem it would be a great boon to all honest importers in our line. Much undervaluation in our line of goods is no doubt practiced by importers in the interior of the country, where it is utterly impossible for the appraisers to be thoroughly posted on their value ; in fact we may say that it is utterly impossible for any appraiser to put the exact valuation on musical boxes, as there are so many minor parts to be taken into consideration that it is sometimes difficult for ourselves to get at the exact value of an instrument if it is in any way out of the current styles. If the duties were paid on the weight all these difficulties would at once be removed and no particular knowledge of the quality or style of musical boxes would be required by any of the appraisers. Musical boxes have always paid the same duty as all other musical instruments, but we see no reason why they should not be considered as a separate class, and if the duty cannot be made specific on all mu- sical instruments, why the change could not be made for musical boxes only. We would prefer to see the duties on musical boxes reduced, but what we desire above all is to see that every importer shall pay the same amount of duty on the same article, whether it be 5 cents or 50 cents per pound, and this object can only be attained in musical boxes by levying the duties by the pound. We would finally suggest that the duties on musical boxes be reduced, . as there are none manufactured in this country and are not likely to be for many years to come ; so that if you should consider our suggestion favorably it may be submitted to Congress to place the rate of duties on musical boxes at 10 cents per pound on the net weight. Hoping for a favorable consideration, we remain, Yours, most respectfully, M. J. PAILLARD & CO. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 141 Number of cases. Kilo- grams. Pounds. Duties at 10 cents per pound on gross weight. Duties paid, 25 per cent, ad va- lorem. 2 650 1, 433. 25 $143 30 $147 75 4 1, 093 2, 410. 00 241 00 285 50 3 940 2, 072. 70 207 25 199 25 3 1, 040 2, 293. 30 229 30 245 50 5 1,400 3, 087. 00 308 70 318 50 4 1, 250 2, 756. 25 275 60 257 25 8 2, 350 5, 181. 75 518 15 577 00 3 950 2, 094. 75 209 45 215 25 7 2, 190 4, 829. 00 482 90 479 75 7 2, 300 5, 071. 50 507 10 546 50 Total duties paid . 3, 122 75 3, 272 25 Duties at 10 cents per pound on ornss wfvioTit. 3, 122 75 Difference in our favor 149 50 [The same.] New York, October 5, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of tlie Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : Eespectfull.v referring to our letter of September 11, in answer to your circular of July 31, we would beg to add that we have since learned that in several European countries the duties on music- boxes are collected on the gross weight, allowing 20 per cent, for pack- ing; so that if a case of music-boxes weighs 500 pounds the duties are levied on 400 pounds only, which seems fair and equitable to all parties concerned and coincides with the figures given in our last letter. Yours, most respectfully, M. J. PAILLARD & CO. [Denton & Cottier, musical goods. ] Buffalo, N. Y., August 25, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir: In reply to your circular letter of July 25, we beg leave to state that for several years we have suffered from a competition which can only be explained or accounted for on the theory of an evasion of duties, and we should be glad to have this effectually stopped; firstly, because we then should stand on an equal footing with all our competitors; secondly, because defrauding the Government is as great a wrong as defrauding an individual, and increases the burden of taxation on the community in general; but a stronger reason than either is, that it makes honesty in business to a great extent incom- patible with success. , These are our objections to the system of ad valorem duties, and we are in favor of any change that promises to remove them without sub- stituting greater evils. Specific duties will undoubtedly remove the evil of undervaluation, yet, unless some attention is paid to valuation, we cannot see how jus- tice can be done to all parties. For example, in our own line of impor- 142 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. tations two extreme grades of the same article would be. charged with the same specific duty, yet one would represent ten times as much labor as the other, to say nothing of the superior quality of material used in its construction, The Canadian Government have a system of ad valorem and specific duties combined, yet its working is far from just or satisfactory. We are, therefore, not prepared to say that we are in favor of any system, because we know of none that has not some serious objection. If, however, a system of specific duties can be devised that will operate alike on all importers we shall be satisfied, although it may be open to objection on other grounds. Candidly — as your circular invites a free expression of opinion — we are not in favor of any system of duties. Viewed as a protection to labor, we think a tariff utterly fails, and must fail as long as a duty is levied on raw material and a premium is offered for the importation (duty free) of laborers. It is a mistake and a self-injury to place obstructions in the way of the importation of lumber, thereby accelerating and encouraging the destruction of our forests. The fact that the tariff is a source of necessary revenue to tbe Gov- ernment is, in our opinion, the only justification for its existence, and we believe that this necessary revenue might be obtained in a much less injurious and objectionable way. This, however, is going beyond the scope of your inquiry, and we therefore conclude by stating that, in our opinion, a system of specific duties may be made less objectionable than an ad valorem one, but we shall be satisfied with either if impartially enforced and provided with efficient safeguards against fraud. Respectfully, yours, DENTON & COTTIER. [R. Sherburne, plate and cylinder glass .] Boston, Mass., September 5, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : In answer to your circular of July 28, 1885, I would say that for the goods I import (polished plate and cylinder window glass) spe- cific duties are much the best for the Government, the honest importer, and the American manufacturer; it gives all parties a more equal chance than ad valorem, as it avoids the risk of false invoices and the many ways of undervaluing that are so dangerous to the Government anil to the honest importers who are willing to pay what the tariff requires. That goods only should be taxed and not the rough packages they are tracked in. That goods having various qualities should have a specific rate of duties made up from an average valuation, to remove the temptation to misrepresent qualities. That duties on cylinder glass are excessive, being on assorted lots about 92 per cent. That manufacturers are not entitled to so much protection, and the whole people should not be taxed so heavily for the few laborers and manufacturers. That on polished plate-glass, in sizes above 10 square feet, the duty is 50 cents a square foot, being on the present cost 158 J per cent, on "the cost in Europe, delivered on board steamers, and that is now a fair REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 143 average for large sizes, being an entirely unnecessary rate either for revenue or protection. With a duty of 25 cents a foot on sizes above 10 square feet, the in- crease in the use of polished plate-glass would yield as much revenue and be as much protection as consumers ought to pay, plate-glass be- ing ground and polished by machinery and the proportion of labor is very small. That the required oath might be omitted without loss to the Govern- ment and very much to the convenience of the importers, as those who intend to cheat the Government would not hesitate about taking the oath. Yours, respectfully, ‘ R. SHERBURNE. [Gallagher & Gilroy, and others, beveled glass. J New York. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : In reply to yours of the 30th ultimo, we submit some facts in relation to the importation of beveled glass, silvered and unsilvered, and a remedy to prevent the evasion of duties now practiced by im- porters. Beveled mirrors as now imported are subject to a duty of .04 cent per square foot. (See article 141, Schedule B.) They should be sub- jected to the same rate of duty as cut glass, (see article 135, Schedule B), there being no difference whatever in the processes of bevelihg and cutting glass. We submit an example to prove the injustice done to home manufacturers : Say one dozen of mirrors, size 3 by 5 inches, are invoiced from the other side at $1.50 per dozen, making a total surface of 1£ square feet, at .04 cent per square foot, makes the duty 5 cents or a total cost of $1.55 per dozen. (Article 141, Schedule B.) If the same one dozen was subjected to duty according to article 135, Schedule B, their total cost would be $2.17£ per dozen. The most feasible way to remedy this matter would be to erase or remove the word “not” from article 135, Schedule B, by proper legislation or such means as you may have at your disposal. It is impossible for domestic manufacturers to compete in price with foreign manufacturers, and, as a natural result, the foreign manufact- urers are gradually absorbing the trade belonging to home manufact- urers. The undersigned, therefore, respectfully request you to exert yourself to protect this rapidly failing industry. GALLAGHER & GILROY, 12 Peck Slip. BALLEREIAN & GO., 13 Baxter street. SOURWEINE & CO., 106 and 108 Centre street. S. H. HEYDORF, 106 Centre street. A. VOGELEY, Corner Elm and Franklin streets. JACOB ZAHN, 536 Pearl street. RIEVER & KAHN, 82 to 86 South Fifth Avenue , 146 and 150 Thompson street. 144 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [J. R. Donnelly, beveled glass.'] New York, July 23, 1885. Daniel Manning, Esq., Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : I see from the press that you have addressed a circular to manu- facturers in relation to proposed changes in the tariff laws. In the manufacture of beveled plate-glass mirrors and plate-glass there is no protection on the beveling of mirrors, or in fact any orna- mental work or cutting done on plate-glass is not protected. Beveled mirrors are being imported, the importer simply paying duty on the plate-glass and looking-glass plates, which covers within the meaning of the tariff a thin glass known in the trade as patent plate. Inclosed please find Schedule B of tariff, with paragraph marked which allows this omission. This omission was taken advantage of by importers and foreign man- ufacturers, and in January, 1883, they gained a decision against the Government in the Supreme Court of the United States, and since then the home manufacturers are being driven out of our own market. This industry is new in the United States, beginning within the last ten years. On receipt of your circular I will forward to you the num- ber of hands employed, capital, &c., which, unless protected, will have to be discontinued on account of foreign competition. Yours, most respectfully, J. R. DONNELLY. [The same. ] New York, October 10, 1885. Daniel Manning, Esq., Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Sir : Replying to your letter and circular of September 24, in refer- ence to beveled plate-glass and mirrors, I would suggest that a specific duty be placed on beveling as on plate glass, which is the raw material in the glass-beveler’s hands. This duty to be as follows on the bevel- ing on looking-glass plates, on the beveling on plate-glass, silvered or un silvered : Not exceeding 10 by 15 inches square, 1J cents per running inch ’ above that and not exceeding 16 by 24 inches square, 2 cents per run' ninginch; above that and not exceeding 24 by 30 inches square, 2J cents per running inch ; above that and not exceeding 24 by 60 inches square, 3 cents per running inch ; all above that, 5 cents per running inch. I forward you samples of beveled plate glass, foreign and domestic, with description accompanying same, as regards relative cost of bevel- ing in Europe and the United States. The pay in Germany to a skilled workman is $3 per week, and we pay in the United States from $12 to $15 per week. As there is no duty on the beveling of plate-glass the importers and foreign manufacturers are driving home manufacturers out of existence, with the loss of capital invested in tools and machinery, and are throwing thousands of workmen out of employment. The clause in this present tariff which allows beveling on j late-glass to be imported free of duty is No. 135, Schedule B. The intention of the law-makers, I believe, was to give some little protection to manufacturers, and doubtless they sought to word the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 145 tariff with that object, but not being familiar with methods and techni- calities of manufactures, they left many a door open by which shrewd importers could bring in their goods at less than the intended rate of duty. They (the importers) have been able to do so in this class of goods by simply paying duty on the cast-polished plate-glass aud look- ing-glass plates as such, and evading the duty on the cost of the bevel- ing thereon. The classified rates named by me would prevent this and give even chance for competition between domestic and foreign manu- facturers on fair terms. These views of mine are indorsed by the whole trade ; we have held many meetings, and I know the opinions held. If deemed by you advis- able, a committee of manufacturers would be pleased to call on you and give answers aud information on any point relating to their business, and would respectfully ask if you can help us at present in this matter; if you cannot, will you kindly keep the above facts from publicity until Congress meets, as the importers’ and manufacturers’ agents would im- port such stocks of glass under the present conditions that it would take at least two years before we could hope to meet them in our own market. Very respectfully, yours, J. R. DONNELLY. [Fraternity Druggists’ Ware Glass Blowers’ League of tbe United States, glass bottles. ] Brooklyn, N. Y., September 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury : Dear Sir : Yours asking for suggestions as to benefits to our trade from simplification of tariff laws, change from ad valorem to specific duties, &c., received. The last change in the tariff' laws changed the duty on empty glass bottles from 30 per cent, ad valorem to .01 per pound specific duty. This change was of great benefit to us, although the rate fixed upon was only one-half the amount recommended by the Tariff Commission, after a full investigation. There are now large quantities of empty beer aud wine bottles imported; the only reason of these importations is the difference in wages of workers in this country and Europe. An increase in the tariff rates would exclude these foreign bottles and start our idle factories without increasing the cost of the bottles to the ultimate consumer, but we have no reason to hope for an increase of the duty on empty bottles. I think, however, we have a right to ask for the same rate on filled bottles that is now levied on empty bottles, viz, 1 cent per pound. The duty on filled bottles, exclu- sive of contents, is 30 per cent, ad valorem. Bottles are filled with water, sent here, 30 per cent, duty collected, the water emptied out, and the bottles sold at less than we can possibly make them. You can also help us by making it possible to get information from the custom-houses relative to parties importing foreign bottles, the kind of bottles im- ported, &e.; also by appointing men to the office of inspectors and other offices who are specially qualified to perform their duties. The present system of civil-service examinations is more calculated to exclude than secure properly -qualified officials so far as importations affecting us are concerned. Yours, respectfully, F. S. TOMLIN, „ ^ 19 Third street. Brooklyn. S. Ex. 72 10 ’ * 146 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Wolff & Rlieiiihold, glass bottles, cement, tyc. ] San Francisco, August 15, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury Department. Washington , D. G. : Sir : In compliance with your request, in your communication of the 1st instant, we herewith beg to hand to you a list of sundry articles now. paying duty ad valorem. By making the duty thereon specific, as per schedule herewith, your Department, in our opinion, would render great service to the Government as well as to the importers. We have suffered great injury on various importations of Portland cement in consequence of our view — which since has been confirmed by the courts — that the barrels in which the cement is packed are not duti- able. In entering the invoices we deducted the value of barrels, which were, however, declared at the time by the United States appraisers dutiable. The amount thus added swelled the value of original cost to over 10 per cent., thus submitting us to a heavy penalty. The question whether barrels and packing should pay duty is still unsettled, and, in order to avoid misuse and complications, we would strongly recommend that on all articles heretofore paying ad valorem duty, and which gave cause to dissenting opinion as to packing and coverings, the duty should be made specific. We also would recommend to you the adoption of the former method of allowing 5 per cent, for breakage and blowage on wine, liquors, and champagne. On our large importations of champagne blowage exists with every shipment, and the appraisers often not being competent to determine the true amount of damage, we maintain that any bottle blown loses in value one-half. We would suggest that the former uniform allowance for such damage of 5 per cent, should be granted, which would greatly simplify matters and at the same time be equitable and just to all. We further submit that the ad valorem duty on bottles containing beer, mineral water, spirits, and champagne should be made more uni- form, and in consideration of such bottles being in most cases of very little value in this country, a specific duty of 1 cent, per bottle (quarts) and £ cent per bottle (pints) for spirits and champagne, and one- half of these rates for beer and mineral water bottles should be established, which would be about equal to 1 cent per pound. We inclose schedule recommending the rates of specific duty which, according to our opinion, should be levied on the different merchandise ; also the rates equivalent to the present ad valorem rates. Very respectfully, WOLFF & BHEINHOLD. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 147 Schedule of ad valorem and specific duties. Portland cement Fruit juice Bottles containing: Beer or mineral water — Quart bottles Pint bottles Spirits or champagne— Quart bottles Pint bottles • Present rate. Equitable specific rate. 20 per cent, on value. 20 per cent, on value. 30 per cent, on value of 2 cents. 30 per cent, on value of 1£ cents. 3 cents per bottle . . 3 cents per bottle. . . 25 cents per barrel not exceeding 400 pounds. 10 cents per gallon. . fjj cent per bottle.. An cent per bottle. . 3 cents per bottle. . . 3 cents per bottle . . . Suggested specific rate. 25 cents per barrel, not exceeding 400 pounds. 10 cents per gallon. £ cent per bottle. i cent per bottle. 1 cent per bottle. £ cent per bottle. [Richard Briggs, china and glass ware.'] Boston, August 12, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir : Deferring to your circular letter of tlie 28th July last, I would say that for many years I have been an importer of china, earthen, and glass ware, and I have had almost daily dealings with the Boston custom-house since 1844. In reply to your first inquiry, I can reply, without qualification , that it would be impossible to arrange for a spe- cific duty upon any of the articles above mentioned. For instance, plates are imported which vary in price from 4 cents to $100 each, and the same will apply to a large proportion of our goods. You have asked for suggestions, and I shall take the liberty of pre- senting the following: (1) All pottery products without discrimination should pay the same rate of duty. This would prevent the disputes that are constantly aris- ing, and it would be equally satisfactory to the American manufacturer and the importer. The article of stoneware now pays 25 per cent, but none of it is imported, nor would there be, even if it were on the free list. White ware pays 55 per cent, and all colored 60 per cent. ; some of the finest goods that I import are pure white, and the cheapest sent to this country is covered with decorations, showing that there is no reason for this difference of 5 per cent, in rate. (2) I think all kinds of glassware should come under one rate, for I believe the distinction is merely a continuance of some ancient custom. (3) The duties should be levied upon the cost of goods on board ship, including every charge. The present rule for collecting upon the value of the goods before packing seemed very feasible to me when enacted, but I find that some importers arrange with the manufacturers to de- crease the invoice cost of the goods and add the same to the charge for packing. There are many details connected with this that I am pre- pared to present should they be required. (4) I would name 35 per cent, as the rate on all kinds of pottery and glassware. If we pay duties on the packages and inland charges the rate I name is equal to 50 per cent, on the manufacturers’ price on the greater portion of the goods imported, and I think you will agree with me that no American manufacturer should require a larger protection, than 50 per cent, 148 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (5) The wording of the law should be submitted to some intelligent importer before adoption. 1 mention this, for in the present law there are several inaccuracies. It refers to china and porcelain, which are one and the same. In 1844 a new ware was sent from England and named u white glazed.” In making up the next tariff a comma was inserted after the word “ white” (see Schedule B, No. 12G), and it has continued to be thus printed until the present time. It makes the sentence mean- ingless and gives rise to much annoyance to the collectors and im- porters. (G) The United States consuls who verify the invoice could do much to prevent fraud, particularly in the smaller places, for in my experience no large manufacturer would be likely to risk his reputation by falsifying his invoices, whereas I am constantly asked by those whose productions are not large how I shall have the invoice made out, and if the consuls could give the matter their attention and judgment they would make many discoveries. Upon this point I can hardly speak too strongly. The portion of the certificate attached to invoices, which interests the consuls, reads as follows: I, 1 — , consul of the United States of America for the district of , do hereby certify that on the day next above written the annexed invoice was pro- duced to me by the person making declaration to the foregoing statefbent, that he signed the same in my presence, that I am satisfied he is the person he represents him- self to be, and that he is a credible person, also that the person before whom the fore- going declaration was made, is duly. authorized to administer oaths and to take dec- larations in lieu of oaths. I should have it made to mean much more than it now does, and let our representatives abroad have all the latitude to investigate that is prac- ticable, and urgent instructions from you to act vigorously and coura- geously in performing this duty. Some years siuce I had the honor several times to be called before the Committee of Ways and Means, of which the Hon. Samuel Hooper, of this State, was the chairman, and I learned the great difficulty that the Government labors under in getting at the facts relative to a just tariff law. One manufacturer came before that committee, bringing a green hock glass, complaining that it could be imported for 80 cents a dozen, and he could not produce it less than $3. This was true, but he did not tell them that the entire yearly consumption of that particular glass in the whole United States would not reach four dozen. Another party showed the committee glass pendants for chandeliers where it would have re- quired a tariff of 800 per cent, to enable them to be made in this country. This was owing to the fact that these pendants were a special industry in one' of the mountains of Austria, where the entire village is devoted to it, and no other section of the world undertakes to compete with them. I am confident that I express the opinion of the whole country when I say that a tariff prepared by an intelligent, honest gentleman, after a thorough investigation of facts, and with the welfare of the entire commu- nity at heart, would be accepted, and cases would be very rare when any importer would be willing to stultify himself by evading it. Trusting that I have not exceeded the duty you so kindly imposed upon me, and assuring you that I shall always be glad to give any in- formation in my power upon one of the great questions of our country, I have the honor to remain, Most respectfully, yours, RICHARD BRIGGS. REVISION OE THE TARIFF. 149 [The Manufacturing Potters’ Association, earthenware. ] Trenton, N. J., October 24, 1885. The Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, B. C. : Dear Sir : The following facts are respectfully submitted for your consideration in reply to your circular of inquiry : Question 1. Commercial designation of the articles, with sample or samples. Answer. Earthenware or crockeryware. Question 2. Cost of production of given unit of quantity, &c. Answer. The cost of producing any given unit of earthenware is made up of so great a number of processes, in which thousands of other units are included, that it is absolutely impossible to answer this question as to the cost of any single unit of quantity. The cost of labor, also, en- tering into the cost of any single unit is impossible to give, for the rea- son that some of the labor is not based upon a system of payment by the piece, but, for instance, by the “ kiln,” which holds several thou- sands of pieces, varying more or less, according to the size of the same. To any’ single unit of earthenware the above remarks will apply, the items of operating. expenses and interest also entering into its cost. Question 3. Description of buildings and machinery and amount of capital invested in each. Answer. There are various kinds of buildings requisite for pottery uses, many or most of them entirely unfitted for anything else. These buildings cover a large area, and with the machinery, which is of pecu- liar construction and wholly useless for any other purposes, form a fixed plant, the cost of which bears a very large percentage to the amount of capital employed — say 65 per cent., the remaining 35 per cent, being actively employed in the business. Should estimate the amount of capital employed in the several potteries making white and decorated tableware to be from $100,000 to $200,000 each, inside figure. Question 4. See Secretary Manning’s letters. Answer. The same difficulties that largely exist in arriving at the cost of any unit of ware would be met in endeavoring to say what would be equal to the present rate of ad valorem duty based upon a system of weight or measure; consequently we are not able to give an intelligent or reliable answer to this query. The subject has often been under- consideration, but from its complex nature no decision has been reached. In reply to your invitation to submit any general information showing the relative cost of manufacture of pottery ware, in the United States and Europe, we layWfore you the following facts : labor. The wages paid in this country cover the greatest item in the in- creased cost of producing crockery in the United States. It may be proper to remark here that the rates of pottery wages are more than double in this country what they are in English potteries for the same kind of labor. In no other industry will you find a more com- plete and accurate array of wages at home and abroad than we here present. It is always very easy to assert , simply , that wages are so and so, but here we have, through the fortuitous dispute of an English labor trouble, all the branches of labor in our trade in England — thirteen branches in all. You will see we have compared, by the same kind of a table, Americau prices. Our work being mostly piece-work, and the articles being unequal in demand, the average earnings for three months for each man has been 150 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. taken at fifteen different factories, and then to get the wages for each branch the average of all the fifteen branches was taken, so that no one can say the figures are either inaccurate or unfair. The English table was made from the books of fifteen different man- ufacturers during the last labor dispute at Staffordshire, England, and published over the name of Edwin Powell, chairman of the Manufact- urers* Association. Now, it is fair to presume that the English manufacturers, in showing the earnings of the men, would not place them less than what they really were. There is no doubt but that their statement is fair. It has been examined thoroughly, and we think it is not exaggerated either one way or the other ; but, discounting the possibilities and probabilities in the case, the earnings would be large enough. Exhibit A . — Average net earnings, after aU deductions for attendants, fc., of the workmen employed at fifteen manufactories, Staffordshire, England. [THIRTEEN BRANCHES.] Number. Flat-press- ers. Dish-mak- ers. Cup-mak- ers. Saucer- makers. Hand-basin makers. Hollow- ware-press- ers. Hollow- ware-press, er jiggers. £ s. d. £ 8 . d. £ 8 . d. £ 8 . d. £ 8 . d. £ 8 . d. £ 8 . d. 1 . 1 11 10 1 11 0 2 3 0 (*) (t) 1 10 0 2 . 1 5 7* 1 7 6 3 0 0 1 4 9 1 13 6 1 11 5 2 11 3 3. 1 10 3 1 7 ■ 7 (*) 1 10 0 1 7 0 o 2 5 2 0 10 4 .. 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 10 0 2 5 0 1 18 0 5 1 7 7 1 19 11 1 10 10 2 4 11 1 18 3 1 15 6 6 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 9 o 1 11 0 1 12 0 2 5 0 7 .. 1 9 11 1 10 6 (*) (*) 1 12 10 1 12 0 2 2 0 8 . 1 16 o 1 11 0 1 16 9 1 10 5 2 0 0 9 1 9 9 1 16 7 1 8 7 1 8 6 1 17 6 1 13 2 2 12 2* 10 1 17 6 1 10 0 2 0 0 1 19 2 1 19 0 11 1 5 3 2 8 0 1 6 5 1 5 8 2 7 8 1 12 4 2 5 4 12 1 10 %9 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 3 8 4 1 7 8 4 5 0 13 1 18 0 2 5 0 3 9 0 1 15 0 1 12 0 1 10 0 2 2 0 14 1 13 0 2 12 6 1 13 0 1 18 6 1 15 0 1 15 0 2 19 6 15 1 15 0 1 16 6 (*) 1 15 10 1 18 8 1 12 10 1 17 9 Total 23 17 11 29 16 1 18 9 0 19 13 3 23 19 2 25 4 6 28 16 3 * Averages : Pounds 1 11 10 1 19 9 2 1 0 1 12 91 1 19 11 j 1 13 7* 2 8 OJ Dollars 7 70 9 62 9 92 7 93 9 66 8 14 11 62 * Women. t With dishes. Number. Printers. Ovenmen. Sagger- makers. Mold- makers. Turners. Handlers. £ 8 . d. £ s. d. £ 8 . d. £ 8 . d. £ 8 . d. I £ 8 . a. 1 1 K) 6 1 7 6 1 11 8 1 17 0 1 11 6 1 13 6 2 1 4 1* 1 8 11 1 10 6 1 16 8 1 10 3 1 4 10 3 1 o 1 1 7 6 2 10 3 1 7 5 2 0 10 4 1 7 0 1 7 6 2 5 0 2 5 0 1 10 0 1 10 0 5 1 9 6 1 13 0 1 15 0 2 0 7 1 11 8 6 1 7 0 1 8 0 1 7 0 2 7 0 1 16 0 2 0 0 7 1 9 2 1 9 10 1 19 10 1 11 6 2 0 7 1 10 8 8 1 7 6 flont.rnn.t 2 9 4 1 8 0 9 1 5 4 1' 7 6 1 16 8 2 4 0 1 7 8 (*) 10 1 8 0 1 7 6 1 12 0 1 14 0 1 16 0 2 2 0 11 1 6 0 1 8 6 1 10 2* 2 4 6 1 11 0 1 12 0 12 1 10 o 1 10 0 2 4 7 1 4 10 13 1 11 3 1 7 6 2 10 0 2 3 0 1 19 0 14 1 7 6 1 11 6 2 14 6 2 13 6 15 1 7 6 1 17 11 (*) Totals 14 17 Hi I 21 5 9 19 4 4* 31 14 3 16 11 0 22 10 10 Averages : , Pounds 1 7 1 1 8 4* 1 14 11* 2 2 3* '• 1 13 1 1 14 8 Dollars 6 55 6 86 8 46 10 23 8 00 ! 8 39 Women. REVISION OP THE TARIFF. 151 Average net earnings per man per week, all deductions for attendants and other purposes being deducted : Of a flat-presser The like of a dish -maker The like of a cup-maker The like of a saucer-maker The like of a handbasin-maker The like of a hollawware-presser The like of a hollowware-presser jigger. The like of a printer The like of an ovenman The like of a sagger-maker The like of a mold-maker The like of a turner The like of a handler £ s. d. Dolls. 1 11 10 = 7 70 1 19 9 — 9 62 2 1 0 — 9 92 1 12 9 — 7 93 1 19 11 9 66 1 13 7 8 14 2 8 a. 4 = 11 62 1 7 1 — 6 55 1 8 4 — 6 86 1 14 11 = 8 46 2 2 3 = 10 23 1 13 1 — 8 00 1 14 8 = 8 39 13)23 7 2 =113 07 The total average per man per week is 1 15 10 = 8 69 The fifteen manufacturers represent all markets of the pottiug trade, and in the case of each separate branch the figures show the average of the wages earned at each of the fifteen manufactories. I think, therefore, that it was not at all misleading for the thirteen branches to be averaged as appeared in Mr. AckrilPs letter, giving £1 15s. 10 d. per man as the aver- age of the men in all branches at the said manufactories. Truly yours, EDWIN POWELL, Chairman of the Manufacturers’ Association. Hanley, December 23, 1881. As corroborative of the correctness of the above, we refer you to the Consular Keports, “Labor in Foreign Countries,” Yol. I, page 836. We have taken fifteen potteries in Trenton, with the average work of each man in the different branches, for comparison with the earnings in English manufactories : Average weekly wages for three months, at fifteen different potteries at Trenton, N. J., after all deductions for attendants, 1 for refining purposes, as being more easily collected, and wholly preventing undervaluation or evasion of the duty. CARBONATE OF AMMONIA. Up to a late period all used in this country was imported and the price ruled about 20 cents per pound. There is now one other factory besides ours, located in New York, and the effect of these two factories going into operation has been to lower the price to about 11 cents per pound. It requires a high grade of skilled and intelligent labor and the wages paid here are more than double those paid in Europe. One house in London has practically had the monopoly of the American market until the manufacture was commenced here, and has now put the price down and is trying to drive these factories out of the business, and (I have been credibly informed) has said they would accomplish it if it cost them £50,000. This house does its business in this country through an agent whose only interest in the goods is a commission for selling, the profit and losses being assumed by the English house. The present duty is 20 per cent, ad valorem, and I think it would be much more to the interest of the Government and manufacturers here to have this changed to a specific duty of 4 cents per pound. MURIATE OF AMMONIA OR SAL AMMONIAC. This business up to the present has been entirely in foreign hands, all of it being imported. We are now building a large factory for its manu- facture, and by January 1 will be in active operation. Our competitors are English manufacturers represented by their agents here, who have no interest in this business except a commission, and put the price up or down as directed by the English house. The present duty is 10 per cent, ad valorem, subject to objections from undervaluation. We recommend a specific duty of 2J cents per pound. The wages paid in this manufacture are about double those paid in Europe. SULPHATE OF POTASH OF HIGH GRADE. At present there is none manufactured in this country, but we are erecting a factory to manufacture it. At present all goods of this grade REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 209 are imported, and we are the first people to attempt its manufacture in this country. The present duty is : Sulphate of potash below 48 per cent., free; sulphate of potash above 48 per cent., 20 per cent, ad valorem. We recommend that the low grade, below 48 per cent., be admitted free, and that the duty on high grade be changed to a specific one of one-half cent per pound. Our competitors are German manufacturers, represented by their agents here, who have no interest in the business except a commission, and the price is put up and down as the market will stand it. [Codman & Hall, castile soap , olive oil.] Boston, September 8, 1885. The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. C. : Sir : We have seen a circular letter from the Treasury Department referring to ad valorem and specific duties, and as we are interested in the matter we beg to submit the following : We believe in having specific duties wherever it is possible, as it is a safeguard against dishonesty. On white castile soap we believe the specific duty equivalent to the present ad valorem, which is 20 per cent., would be li cents per pound, and we would recommend it to be made 1 cent per pound. On salad olive oil, say, 50 cents per gallon, which is sufficient protection against the American cotton seed. On so-called machinery olive oil (not salad) 10 to 15 cents per gallon, which would protect lard oil. The members of our firm believe in a reduction of the tariff in many articles, and the free-listing of many others, and protection in but few cases. Personally we are not affected in the goods we import by the present amount of duty, but would like to feel sure that no one pays less duties than ourselves on the articles we import. * Yours, most respectfully, CODMAN & HALL. [Hills Brothers, dried fruits.'] New York, September 10, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular, August 1, permit us to say that, in our judgment, duties on fruits should be made entirely specific; they are now mainly so, the principal exceptions being candied citron, orange and lemon peel, and on these articles we think the duty should be changed to a specific one, as under the present method no importer can tell exactly what such goods will cost him laid down in New York. Contracts for citron and peels are generally made early in the season for shipment during certain later months, the articles taking some time to preserve and manufacture. During the past two seasons the price advanced considerable before shipments were made, and when the goods were entered at our custom- S. Ex. 72 14 210 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. house importers were compelled to advance their invoices to correspond with the market price abroad at the time their fruit was shipped. In advancing an invoice there is always danger to an importer that he may not advance the price enough to suit the ideas of the appraisers, and may have to pay a heavy penalty. If the market declines abroad the goods are still invoiced to the importer at the price contracted for, and he is compelled to pay the ad valorem duty on a price sometimes much higher than the market value at tin*e of shipment ; this we consider unfair, and a specific duty would do away with such injustice. We speak from experience, being the largest importers of these arti- cles in the United States. At present dried prunes and currants pay a duty of 1 cent per pound, dried raisins and figs 2 cents per pound, filberts and walnuts 3 cents per pound, and almonds 5 cents per pound, while Brazil nuts come in free. We would suggest that the rate be made uniform, one-half cent or 1 cent per pound on all dried fruits and nuts imported. The loss of reve- nue by thus making a uniform rate would be very little, if any, the total value of all these goods imported being small. Yours, very respectfully, HILLS BROS. [The same.] New York, October 23, 1881. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : We think a duty of 2 cents per pound on citron, and 1 cent per pound on orange and lemon peel, would be about right. At the present time there are no manufacturers of candied citron, orange or lemon peel in this country. Yours, respectfully, HILLS BROS. [Thurber, Whyland & Co., canned vegetables .] New York, October 7, 1885. Treasury Department , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : Since I have had the pleasure of seeing you I have in- vestigated the matter of importation of French peas by my house in the years 1883, 1884, and 1885. Iuclosed you will find a table showing our yearly importation of each grade, the yearly average of duty, per case, paid by us on each grade, and finally, the grand average of duty on French peas for the last three years without regard to quality. This grand average as you see, is $3.28 per case of 100 tins. If you will consult the average of duty paid by other importers you will find that it is below ours, and I dare say considerably below. I submit to you the idea of our Government imposing a specific duty of $3.50 per case, which would do away with all present trouble in re- gard to the interpretation of s'ectiou 7 of act of March 3, 1883, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 211 This specific duty on French peas would also favor our home packers of the American article, from the fact that the specific duty would have the effect of increasing the tariff on ordinary and medium quality of goods, the ones with which our home manufacturers mostly compete. I remain, very respectfully, yours, ALEXIS GODILLOT, Jr. [TBURBER, WHYLAND & Co.] Extra fine. Surfine. Fine. Mayen. Tears. Cases Average duty per case of 100 tins. Cases. Average duty per case of 100 tins. Cases. Average duty per case of 100 tins. Cases. Average duty per case of 100 tins. 1883 190 $4 18 4 19 213 $3 62 3 67 425 $3 14 3 15 270 $2 35 2 33 1884 293 300 418 430 1885 455 3 84 378 3 58 366 3 01 358 2 31 Average of 3 years 4 07 3 62 3 10 2 33 Grand average of duty per case of 100 tins for the last three years on all grades of imported “French peas ” without regard to quality, equals $3.28 per case of 100 tins. . [The same. ] New York, October 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : Yours of the 29th instant at hand. There are only two sizes of tins in which French peas are packed, the u liter 77 and u half liter 5 77 the former mostly used for the French home trade. We can safely say that 99 per cent, of the importations of French peas are in cases con- taining tins of half a liter each. Mr. A. Godillot suggested before a specific duty of 3J cents per tin of half a liter, therefore the specific duty on the liter tins would be double, viz, 7 cents per tin. We now beg to add that after consulting our invoices of French pre- served vegetables of all kinds in tins during the last three years 7 im- portations, we find that a specific duty of 3J cents per tin of half a liter and 7 cents per tin of one liter would be as acceptable to the Govern- ment and as equitable to the importers, besides haviug the advantages mentioned in our Mr. A. Godillot’s letter. Very respectfully, yours, THURBER, WHYLxlND & CO. [The same.] New York, November 4, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , I). C.: Dear Sir : Yours of the 30th ultimo at hand. We will be pleased if any information we give can be of service to you or our Government, and you can make whatever use you wish of the same. 212 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. As we had the pleasure of telling you iu our last, French preserved vegetables of all kinds are packed by measure and not by weight; that is, in liter and half litercansu We give you below the respective weights of each article, but these are not a criterion as regards prices, as all these vegetables are packed in water, and the cans weigh the same re- gardless of the vegetables they contain, they being always full of water and the water being as heavy as the vegetables. Lbs. oz. Weight of a half liter can, full of water 1 2 Net weight of a half liter can empty 3£ Gross weight of the following vegetables in half liter cans: Lbs. oz. Mushrooms 1 T| Peas 1 2£ Flageolet beaus 1 3 String beans 1 3 Very respectfully, vours, THUBBEB, WHYLAND & CO. [Alpheus H. Hardy & Co., damage allowances, olive oil, soaps, green fruits.'] Boston, July 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary , Washington , Z>. G. : Sir : In reply to your circular letter of yesterday’s date we have to say that in our judgment the only way of avoiding the evils of under- valuation abroad is by enlargingthe list of articles subject to a specific duty ; and in our own line of business most articles are so taxed on entry. We would add others, as olive oil, soaps, and all green fruits. Olive oil was so taxed. Oranges and lemons from Spain pay an ad va- lorem, while from Sicily they pay a specific. In our business we re- gard the system of damage allowance as more injurious to the honest importer, and a greater fraud upon the Government than the evils of undervaluation, and one much more difficult to correct. Indeed, it is a serious questiou whether anything short of the abolition of all allow- ance for damage received on the voyage of importation can correct this abuse. We believe that because of the practices at certain ports mer- chants in others not only labor at a great disadvantage, but are practi- cally prohibited from importing certain goods directly into their own markets. And this system has gone so far that custom-house brokers in soliciting business advertise and emphasize the fact that they pay especial attention to damage allowances. It is impossible to go into details in a correspondence, but so far as Boston merchants engaged in the Mediterranean trade are concerned, we believe that a personal canvass among them will substantiate our view of the importance of ripping up the damage allowance system from the very bottom. Bespectfully, yours, ALPHEUS H. HABDY & GO. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 213 [Frederick S. Robinson & Co , green fruits ] New York, December 2, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington: Sir : In reply to your Department circular of the 1st August last we beg to say that we are in favor of specific duties whenever practicable, which system, in our opinion, can alone protect American interests. Weiiad suggested to the late Tariff Commission specific duties on green fruit, which was acted upon on importations from the Mediterranean in boxes, and not in cases, while consistency demanded that the alteration should have been made on both ; and if changes are to be effected on the present tariff, we respectfully beg to suggest the following specific duties: On cases of oranges, 40 cents per case; on barrels of grapes, 40 cents per barrel ; on kegs of grapes, 20 cents per keg, of the usual sizes, and which rates we believe will be equal to the present ad valorem duties, unless it will be the intention of Congress to place green fruit on the free list, agriculture, in our opinion, requiring no protection in this country. We are, however, adverse to frequent changes in the tariff, as it gen- erally produces stagnation in business, particularly when, as usual, the revision is almost general. Such articles alone should be acted upon demanding prompt legisla- tion when the interests of our people require it. To make radical changes in the tariff is giving foreign nations ad vantages without receiving any equivalent, and on said account we favor commercial reciprocal treaties instead of sweeping changes in the tariff. We have the honor to remain your obedient servants, FREDERICK S. EOBINSON & CO. [S. W. Burt, oranges.'] Port of New York, Naval Office, July 13, 1885. My Dear Sir : I inclose herewith a memorandum of two entries of oranges recently liquidated in this office, which exhibit very clearly the preposterous character of our present tariff, which so often attempts, by its differential niceties, to cover specifically different conditions, and so breeds absurdities. I send this memorandum simply as a curious illustration of the im- policy of trying to over-refine a tax- law, which in its very nature must operate more or less unequally, and every attempt to adjust which to all possible conditions leads to complications and irregularities far greater than those sought to be avoided. • There are four rates of duties on oranges. The importer who adheres to the usual packages defined in the law cannot compete with his cun rung rival who ships his goods in abnormal packages. There is also in these two examples a strong illustration of the preva- lent tendency to reduce market values by increasing the proportionate value of the charges. The present tariff rates on oranges were un 214 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. doubtedly based upon the old valuations under the law prior to March, 1883, and the exclusion of changes has deranged the whole scheme. # * * # # *= # Very truly, yours, SILAS W. BURT. Hon. O. S. Fairchild, Assistant Secretary , Washington , D. G. [Entry 36,723. G. Wessels & Co., Vertumnus, March 25, 1885. 451 boxes oranges, * containing 90,200. Value, $165. Appraiser reported not the legal capacity, but subject to a duty of 20 per cent, under T. I. new 298.] Statement showing different amounts of duty assessable under the present tariff. If in legal boxes, 451, at 25 cents $112 75 If in bulk, 90,200, at $1.60 144 32 As returned, actual, $165, at 20 per cent 33 eO [Entry 46,798. G. Wessels, Vertumnus, April 16, 1885. 280 boxes oranges containing 46,000.] Value on the trees $100 74 Value picking, packing, &c 184 69 Appraiser reported boxes not the legal capacity, but subject to a duty of 20 per cent. Statement showing different duties. If legal boxes, 280, at 25 cents $70 00 If in bulk, 46,000, at $1.60 73 60 Actual duty, $101, at 20 per cent * 20 20 [Eugene Schuyler, dried currants.~\ Ithaca, FT. Y., October 20, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: Having received intimation that a scheme for the revision of the tariff is being prepared in the Treasury Department, I take the lib- erty of calling your attention to the expediency of diminishing, if not entirely removing, the. duties on dried currants. My excuse for presenting this matter to you is that when I was min- ister at Athens the Greek Government several times expressed to me their desire that the duties in America should be taken off this article. Their wishes I at once presented to the Department of State and they were, I believe, communicated to the Committee on Ways and Means. Further, on leaving Athens, I promised the Greek Government that I would do whatever was possible for them in presenting this matter to our Government. Dried currants are raised only in Greece, and even there only in the northwestern portion of the Morea and in the islands of Zante and Cephalonia. It has not yet been found possible to cultivate the vine which produces these currants in any other part of the world. Within the districts where the currant grows more and more land has yearly been brought under cultivation, and currants now constitute the greater part of the exports of Greece. The whole prosperity of the country de- * The 451 boxes have “ charges” $329. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 215 pends upon the crops, and the Greek Government has therefore taken every measure in its power to increase the exportation. They have succeeded in making commercial treaties with Germany, Russia, and France, by which the import duties on currants have been lowered in those countries respectively. They would be willing, if necessary and if possible, to give some return to the United States for any diminution of the duty on this article. But as they have already lowered the duties on all articles imported from America (and especially on machinery), with the exception of petroleum, which is a Government monopoly, the whole of which is purchased in the United States under a contract which has some years yet to run, it does not seem that they possess now any equivalent to offer. Considering, however, the comparatively small amount which this duty brings to the Treasury, about $300,000 per annum, it would be possible for the United States to give up the duty entirely without seri- ous loss to the revenue. As no currants have ever been raised in the United States, there is no question of protection involved. Our experience during the last seventeen years shows that every reduction of duty has been attended by an increase of importation until after the lapse of a few years the di- minished duties brought in as much revenue as the higher duties pre- viously. I beg leave to annex, for your convenience, a table showing the quan- tities and values of currants imported into the United States, together with the rates of duties and the amount collected on the same, from 1867-’83, taken from the official statement published by the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department. By this you will see that the amount imported in 1882, with a duty of 1 cent per pound, was more than four times as great as that imported in 18G9, the highest year, when the duty was 5 cents per pound; although the amount received from duties was not quite equal in 1882 to 1869. Dried currants cannot be considered a luxury, as their use is confined chiefly to the lower middle class for flavoring the more ordinary kinds of sweet cakes. In England, for I am unable to say how it is in the United States^ currants are an article of necessity to miners ; for it is found that they possess heat-giving qualities, and the miners drink, in order to keep themselves warm while at work, water which has beeu poured over and allowed to stand on a handful of dried currants of this description. Freeing them from duty would therefore seem to be an advantage to the working class. Begging you kindly to take this subject into consideration, I have the honor to be, Mr. Secretary, Your obedient servant, EUGENE SCHUYLER. 21 G REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Table showing the quantity and value of imported currants entered for consumption in Ihe United States , together with the rates of duty and the amounts of duty collected on the same during each year ended June 30, from 1867 to 1883, inclusive. \ [.Currants, Zante, and all other.] Fiscal year ended June 30— Quantity. Value. Rate of duty per pound. Amount of duty. Addi- tional and discrim- inating duty. Average value per unit of quantity. Aver- age ad valo- rem duty. 1867 Pounds. 6, 685, 109 6, 736, 229 7, 920, 376 $295, 606 52 253, 302 43 257, 248 00 Cents. 5 $334,255 45 336,811 45 396,018 80 . 044 P. cent. 113. 06 1868 5 . 037 132. 95 1869 5 $52 80 .032 153. 94 1870 7, 662, 942. 50 295, 789 20 5 383,147 13 64 50 .038 129.87 1871 ^ 4, 105, 725 212, 785 35 5 205,286 25 .052 91.77 5,118, 611 224. 359 54 n 127,965 32 .043 56. 99 1872 1873 £ 11, 479, 578 83, 872 14, 057, 925 467, 289 58 4, 108 00 562, 278 49 i i 286,989 46 2,096 80 140,579 25 .040 .048 .040 61. 42 51. 04 25. 00 1874 19,319, 191 752, 694 00 i 193,191 91 3 30 .038 25. 66 1875 19,334, 458 771, 384 56 i 193,344 58 3 70 .040 25. 06 1876 20, 911,061 17, 152, 664 17, 941,352 17, 405,347 18, 007, 492 21,631,512 32, 592, 231 31, 171, 171 856,425 62 749, 488 00 776, 827 00 520, 831 07 600, 603 40 845,773 00 | 1,388,886 00 1, 247, 504 00 i 209, 110 61 .041 24. 42 1877 i 171,526 64 179,413 52 174,053 47 180,074 92 216,315 12 325,922 31 . 043 22. 88 1878 i . 043 23. 09 1879 .. i . 030 33. 42 1880 i . 033 29. 98 1881 i . 039 25. 58 1882 . .043 23. 47 1883 i 311,711 71 .040 24. 99 [James A. Hayes & Co., dried and preserved fruits, vegetables, $c. ] Boston, September 1, 1885. The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury", Washington: Sir : In reply to your circular of July 27, the undersigned, for many years past engaged in the importing of olive oil, dried and sugared fruits, pickles, preserves, mustard, &c., desires to express the opinion that specific duties serve to protect the honest importer from fraudulent ad- vantages often gained by foreign exporters. Fixed specific rates tend to the bringing of sounder and better quality of commodities to this country, to the exclusion of low grades not re- quired, as is demonstrated under the present specific duties on sardines and other prepared fish. Prunes, cheese, oatmeal, chocolate, ground mustard, now paying 10 cents per pound, equal, to nearly GO per cent, ad valorem, while uu- ground mustard is free of duty. We suggest the duty on ground mustard to be specific, 5 cents per pound ; also on ground pepper and other spices, 5 cents per pound ; pickles, vegetables, &c., prepared with vinegar, 1J cents per pound ; pickles, vegetables, &c., in brine or salt, three-fourths cent per pound. Which, with annexed memoranda, is respectfully submitted by JAMES A. HAYES & CO. Olive oil for eating and medicinal purposes, now pays ad valorem duty 25 per cent , as expiessed oil. It being next to impossible for appraisers to correctly judge of the true value of this article, much decoptiou is practiced by underinvoicing, whereas a specific duty of 20 or 25 cents per gallon on all salad , olive , or eating oils would amount to about 25 per cent, on the average price of such oils in Europe, while 10 or 12 cents per gallon on machinery or manufacturing olive oil. unfit for eatiug, would be about 25 per cent, ad valorem on same. REVISION OF TIIE TARIFF. 217 Sugared fruits. — Plums, cherries, figs, limes, citron, orange peel, ginger root, &c., pre- pared with sugar, now pay ad valorem duty 35 per cent., whereas a specific rate 2 to 3 cents per pound would admit of citizens of the United States doing some of the business in these articles, which is now mostly controlled by foreign houses. [The same.] Boston, November 18, 1885. Since the above date the writer has .been in Europe and learned far- ther of the wrongful practice under ad valorem rates of duties, and is more fully convinced of the necessity of specific rates. Respectfully, JAMES A. HAYES & GO. [Ward, Hill & McClellan, stationery , druggists' sundries , and toys.'] Saint Paul, Minn., November 9, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: In reply to your circular letter of July 26. Probably un- dervaluations occur, but presumably so in isolated cases, and where the amounts are large, as when foreign factories have agents in this country. My experience in the last twenty years connected with importing houses leads me to believe that goods are not undervalued by the im- porters, but that the tariff itself, from the nature of its construction, its obvious advantages to the few as against the masses, and even the Gov- ernment’s interests, together with its different constructions by Depart- ment decisions — all are a constant source of temptation not to under- value, but to enter at the lowest possible classification. As an example, “ smokers’ sets” (ornamental articles of various ma- terials, and consisting of receptacles for cigars, tobacco, matches, &c.) were probably intended to be entered under u smokers’ articles,” and pay a duty of 70 per cent. However, if made of wood, they are entered under manufactures of wood, and pay 35 per cent.; or, if of terra cotta, they are entered as manufactures of earthenware, and pay 55 per cent. It frequently, x>erhaps designedly, happens that the invoice does not state of what materials these sets are made, nor would the importer always know until after the duties had been paid and the goods un- packed. This difference in duties by the several classifications is more than usual profits. In reply to the last clause of your letter. I have carefully gone over the numerous list of articles with which I am familiar in our business, with the intention of naming specific duties, but am met at every step with the animus of the tariff. Starting at soap, Schedule A, chemical product, section 2502, we find: “ Hard and Soft, &c., 20 per cent.” With these I am not familiar, but why is castile classed with them ? Evidently, it does not conflict with American products, and if placed under fancy soap, would then pay from 1 to 200 per cent.; but why should “fancy soap” pay 15 cents per pound, in the great majority of cases equal to over 100 per cent, duty? Simply that foreign soaps may not compete with domestic, and by this prohibitory duty defrauding the Govern- ment of any considerable duty on soap (excepting castile). 218 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Similar results will follow on most articles with which I am familiar, even down to “diamonds,” including glaziers’ diamonds on the free list. The faults of the present tariff are many, but may be reduced to the one point, viz: Its object is not the support of our Government at all, but how to disguise the discriminations it makes against the masses and the Government for the benefit of the few. .Respectfully, ward, hill & McClellan, By EUGENE WARD. [Robert Clarke & Co., books .] Cincinnati, July 27, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning-, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: Your circular of 25th instant is received. As our im- portations are such as are suitable to a large retail business, we seldom import single books in quantities. For our needs and those of our cus- tomers we would object to a specific duty in place of an ad valorem duty, as it Would be discriminating against the poor and in favor ol ’lie rich. A 5-shilling and a 20-shilliug book very often weigh the same, and would under a specific duty pay the same duty. This, of course, is what the publishers and reprinters want, by a heavy duty to hinder the importation of the originals and their reprints. It would, however, affect also thousands of books which are never reprinted, and in this case would be a hardship. Of the books reprinted* people are gener- ally content with the reprint. It is seldom we are asked to import an English book of which there is a reprint. It is a question whether the needs of the public, who are the buyers, should not be taken into consideration quite as much as the wants of the few publisher^ and reprinters. The people want cheap books. Those reprinted are cheap enough ; but the thousands that are never reprinted they want cheap also. Under a specific duty they would be dispropor- tionately dear; under an ad valorem duty they would be reasonably cheap. Our objection to a specific duty would be an internal one. We would be unable to quote a fixed price for importation of books, as the cost would depend on the weight, which we have no means of knowing, when as under an ad valorem duty it is fixed by the publisher’s price, which is known. We think the present rate of duty is fair to all concerned, giving the publisher or reprinter quite as much protection as he should ask, and, with the free importation of books printed over twenty years, not oppressive on the buyers. Yours, respectfully, ROB. CLARKE & CO. [Houghton, Mifflin & Co., books.] The Riverside Press, Cambridge , August 25, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir: I am in receipt of your circular of July 29. Several years ago there was a good deal of undervaluation, and very great want of system REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 219 in the valuation of invoices of books. I then favored a specific duty, and prepared a comparative table of the amounts required by specific as well as ad valorem duties. Since then, however, the method of as- sessing the duties has been very much systematized, and the values of books are so well understood in both markets that I am inclined to think there is very little undervaluation. The difficulty in fixiug a specific duty for books lies in the fact of the great variety of prices for books, not determined by their bulk, but by a great many other conditions which do not apply to ordinary merchandise. The specific duty would increase the cost and protect the production of the cheaper class of books in this country, and would allow very expensive books, bought mostly by the rich, to come in at a comparatively low rate. I think, therefore, that a change from the ad valorem to specific duties on books would involve so many questions as to make it very difficult to effect the change, and of very little practical value when done. There has been more misconception, probably, in the matter of duties on books than on any other kind of merchandise. The glittering generality is often in- dulged in that knowledge should be free. So is the wind free, but it may be necessary to tax the windmill. It is not the knowledge that we tax, but the paper and ink, and types, and the material out of which the books are made, and probably there is no industry in the whole range of industries in this country where there is so great a proportion of skilled labor required as in that of the production of books. This labor is uot too well paid as it is, and a slight variation of the duty would largely change the production of books from this country to a foreign country. This is particularly true of a large class of books, such as those of standard authors, where the copyrights have expired, and which are very widely distributed among all classes of people in this country. It was demonstrated very clearly in the discussion which arose two or three years ago that the difference of 1 or 2 cents deduction of the duty now existing would transfer the manufacture of that very large class of books to England or the Continent of Europe, and the % duty was very properly restored from the report of the Tariff Commission to the present rate. I shall be glad to have this communication, for the present, con- sidered as confidential. Yours very truly, H. O. HOUGHTON, Of Houghton , Mifflin & Co. [The same.] Boston, Mass., November 5, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : I am in receipt of your favors of September 26 and October 17, respectively. In accordance with the request of the favor of Septem- ber 26, I have to say that the table which I had made up of the com- parative rates of specific and ad valorem duties was destroyed several years ago in the burniug of our office in this city. I have tried to make a new one, but have not the means at hand to make it so complete as the previous one $ but I trust the one I have will be clear. It can be tested indefinitely by examples from different publishing houses. While. 15 cents a pound will probably be as nearly an equivalent rate as pos- 220 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. sible to a 25 per cent, ad valorem, my table does not show as fully as I believe to be the fact, that a specific duty will be greater on a cheaper class of books, and less on dear books. Respectfully, H. O. HOUGHTON. Schedule A. Weight. Ad valorem duty 25 per cent. Equivalent specific duty per pound, about — Duty reck- oned at 15 centsper pound.* Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. 4, large paper Ounces. 53 Cents. 63 .19 .495 Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. 4 29£ 18 .097 .276 Siberia, 1 vol 39i 13£ • 05£ .37 Marlowe, vol. 1, large paper 33 40 .194 .309 Marlowe, vol. 1, regular edition 25 24 .153 .234 Swift’s Works, vol. 2 32 30 .15 .30 State Trials, vol. 1 24 18 .12 .225 Douglass Paper Books 5i 04 . 12 .048 Longman’s New Testament 96 63 • 105 ■ 90 * Average duty on above nine books about 15 cents per pound. [Southwortli Company, paper manufactures .] Mittineaque, Mass., August , 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury : Dear Sir : Responding to your circular in regard to proposed sub- stitution of “ specific 77 for u ad valorem 77 duties, permit me to express my admiration of the thoughtful care which this method suggests, and of the consideration it shows in giving manufacturers generally an op- portunity to express their views. As paper ranges all the way — in sell- ing price — from 2.J cents per pound for roofing paper up to 50 cents per pound for a bond paper, it would seem as if a specific duty would be impossible, except with classification which would perhaps leave room for evasion equally with present ad valorem duties. Yours, respectfully, h. w. southworth; Treasurer . ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. 1 (a). Best of new linen rags ; for the most part imported at a cost of 9 cents per pound ; no duty charged on rags, waste, and tare would increase actual cost of stock which is incorporated in paper to 12 cents per pound. 1 (&). Preparing stock, 3 cents per pound (hand labor) ; tending machinery, 5 cents per pound ; hand labor finishing, 2 cents per pound; coal, water-power, insurance, freights, salaries, &c., 4 cents per pound; total, 26 cents per pound for No. 1 thick. But for No. 1 thin must be added 10 cents more per pound, to be divided about equally between “ additional waste and cost in surfacing,” “ tending machinery,” and “hand labor finishing.” Women’s wages average ; men’s wages average $2.25 per day. HE VISION OF THE TARIFF. 221 2 (6). Cheapest of cotton rags are used, and shavings from trimming books and old papers. As this stock is ground only about one-fourtli as long as the No. 1, the waste is much less, and nearly 4 tons can be made of No. 2 while 1 ton of No. 1 is being made. Cost of stock about 3 cents per pound ; preparing stock, 1 cent per pound ; tending machinery, 2 cents per pound; hand labor, one-half cent per pound ; coal, water-power, insurance, freights, salaries, &c., cents per pound; total, 8 cents per pound. 2 ( d ). This is a variable quantity and depends on the amount of profits to be divided among stockholders. 2 ( e ). Wear and tear, which in a paper mill is very large, as many of the floors are wet and rot out rapidly. (I am not practically acquainted with manufacture of engine-sized paper, so I have to make this sheet on hearsay evidence.) 3. Buildings are necessarily of brick or stone, as the “ mortality” of wood paper mills is very large, on account of their danger from fire. “Description of machinery” would be very difficult to make in a brief letter. “Amount of capital invested” here is about $200,000 ; but our mill is a small one. 4. I cannot give answer, except that it is satisfactory to the manufacturers, as duties are now assessed. A reduction of duties was made some years since. In the manufacture of paper a good water-power is required, as the “beating engines,” run night and day, require a great deal of power. To make white paper a good supply of clear, pure wash-water is necessary ; these two conditions compel the locating of writing-paper mills at a distance from sea board, and consequently compelling transportation for considerable distance of coal, of which as much in weight is used as paper is made, for boiling, drying, drying-lofts, and heating, and stock and chemicals are once and a half greater in weight than paper made ; so that the item of freight is necessarily a large one. Taxes are very high, the State de- manding a copy of annual inventory, and it takes all assets, even out of the State, that the town and county assessors do not tax. The character of labor in writing- paper mills is necessarily of a high order of intelligence, for the machinery is not self- regulating, and judgment must be shown in every process, while fidelity is essential; hence the liberal wages paid. Using the word “character” in the moral sense, the evidence is most satisfactory. The employment of men and women is so fortunately balanced that “family help” — the possible employment of all the members of the family except the mother— prevents the herding in boarding-houses (except at Holy- oke), while the leading mill-owner, being usually manager and near resident, makes his influence more closely felt among his hands than in manufactures which employ larger mills and larger bodies of employes, and with disparity in relative number of the sexes. As near as I can judge, the present duties just about cover the difference in labor and what is considered a fair profit over the same items in foreign manufacture. The president of the Paper-Makers’ Association, W. H. Parsons, 66 Duane street, New York, could answer this more understandingly. I have never known any complaint of or any suspicion of evasion of duties. Through protection (as we believe), the importation of writing paper has been reduced, so that it is only about 2 per cent, of what it was at the highest point, when prices were high after the war, for, through this protection, American paper-makers have dared to ex- periment, and often have succeeded, in equaling foreign high-priced papers. I trust I am not giving “too free translation” of above in expressing my convic- tion of the importance of the two other possible governmental efforts to foster Ameri- can industries : (1) The repression of pauper immigration. (2) The fostering of facilities for information as to what articles are consumed in South America and other parts of this continent. Of the “first,” the old excuse of “ the need of cheap labor to develop the country” has ceased to have force, except with a few railroad contractors, who give employ- ment to the class who are a large part of the unsettled and turbulent laborers, who are the tools in the hands of unscrupulous agitators, who seem desirous of precipitating that which many thoughtful men believe will be our next- great internecioe strife, the conflict of labor and capital. The immigrants with money go to the West to become land-holders and law-abiding citizens. Of the “second,” it would seem as if the consular service might be broadened and made more effective (say) by establishing a bureau of information at Washington (or, perhaps better, New York) where every branch of business or manufacture could get intelligent information of the articles consumed in other parts of this continent, of the channels of distribution, and the prices paid and samples ; beyond a certain general line of information, payment would be made by those seeking it, but Government would furnish competent and reliable agents to make such investigations. Almost every branch of trade or manufacture has not only its trade journals, but 222 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. its trade organizations, which would he convenient channels to invite inquiries and disseminate information. Some inquiries which I have made recently have convinced me how difficult it is to obtain such knowledge. Demand for articles not now used in those countries could be created by permanent exhibits (paid for by exhibitors) but directed and cared for by a branch of consular service or working with it. Pardon this long communication, which, however, comes from a very busy man, but one who feels deeply on these points. Appended to this we show you samples of the best aud of the cheapest grade of writing paper.* We append price to show the relative cost of each (i. e., cost of paper to jobber) to indicate the wide range of value even in this branch. I put num- bers on them for convenience of reference in showing relative cost of making. The next lower classification of white or tint paper is book paper, and below that is news- paper. Presumably, others who make these last two (as we do not) can give yod in- formation which I have not at hand, but will gladly get such information if desired and not furnished by makers of those grades of papers. [Harper & Brothers, books and electrotype plates.'] New York, July 28, 1885. Hod. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : We are in favor of specific duties on books by weight and on electrotype plates by measurement of surface instead of the present method of ad valorem. #*##### Very respectfullv, HARPER & BROTHERS. [The same.] November 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: We hasten to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 13th instant. It seems to us that the existing tariff discriminates against American labor wherever the duties upon the materials from which books are manufactured exceed the duties upon manufactured books — as is the case, for instance, with book-cloth, the duty on which is 35 per cent, as against 25 per cent, on books. But we do not wish to be understood as advocating higher duties on books. Very respectfully, HARPER & BROTHERS. [Estes & Lauriat, books.] Boston, August 4, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular letter of July 29 we would say that we have for a loug time been firmly of the opinion that a specific * Note.— S amples will be transmitted separately to Congress. REVISION OE THE TARIFF. 223 duty upon books and other matters appertaining thereto would be ad- visable, and we have given a great deal of thought and attention to this and other matters appertaining to the international relations connected with our trade, having warmly favored a system of international copy- right for many years. We merely mention this to show you that the subject is not new to us. It is impossible for us to form any estimate of the amount of under- valuations from which our firm and the Government have suffered in past years, but it is an unquestioned fact that there have been a large amount of undervaluations in books and other matters connected with the publication of books. We can conceive of no plan to prevent such evasions except by a uniform, specific duty upon all classes of books, with the exception of certain classes to be hereafter mentioned, which we think should be wholly free of duty. We would recommend first, that all books printed upwards of twenty years, as at the present, should be free of duty. Second, that all books printed in foreign languages should be free of duty, it being, in our opinion, a manifest absurdity that Government should collect a duty upon books of this class when it doesn’t need the revenue, and when it is taxing a class of merchandise which is not an American product, and cannot therefore require protection. Third, we would recommend for all other classes of books a uniform specific duty, of, say, 12 cents per pound on all classes of books, for the following reasons: (1) Because it would make a high protective tariff upon a cheap class of books, which, in our opinion, are the only ones which require protection at the hands of the Government ; (2) because it would be a measure of reduction upon very costly books, such as can- not in the nature of things be reprinted, and many of which, such as scientific and technological books, are important to our students to be imported at a merely nominal rate of duty, and (3) we would recommend that stereotype and electrotype plates should pay a specific duty of a sum not to exceed the amount that is otherwise levied upon the mate- rial of which such plates are composed. We would suggest the same rule to apply to steel and copper plates for the production of illustra- tions to books. In conclusion we would say that we are both manufacturers of Amer- ican books to a very large extent, and also importers of books and plates, as above mentioned, so that we believe we can take a fair and impartial view of the matter from each aspect. Very respectfully, yours, ESTES & LAURIAT. [Address of the Smith Township Wool Growers’ Association, ivool.'] Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : We, the Smith Township (Washington County, Pennsyl- vania) Wool-growers’ Association, in availing ourselves of your kind in- vitation, extended to the different industries of our country, to place themselves in communication with the Treasury Department, respect- fully beg leave to direct your attention to some of the adverse circum- stances surrounding the great wool-producing interests of the Ohio Val- ley, and to suggest, in an humble way, a few changes in the existing tariff schedule, which we deem of vital importance, not only to the wool- 224 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. growers themselves, but changes in justice due the great agricultural portion of our country. You are aware that we are pre eminently an agricultural people, that agricultural interests tower above and over- shadow all other industries of our country, and that therefore any cir- cumstance, or condition, favorable to, or contributing to the well-being and prosperity of, the agricultural interests of our country is indeed a boon to the whole nation. By reference to census statistics you will find that at no time have we, as a people, produced sufficient wool for home consumption ; that, year by year, the percentage of increase of population far exceeds the increase of wool production ; and, from figures of the Agricultural Department, as also from personal observation, this association assures you that since the enactment of the tariff rates of 1883 the decrease in wool production in the Ohio Valley has been an hundred fold intensified; that the wool clip of 1885 was fully 25 per cent, less than that of 1884 ; and that from present indications the clip of 1886 will fall much under that of 1885, and the continuance of the existing tariff rates upon imported wool will in a very short time drive all wool-growers east of the Mississippi into other channels of agriculture. This would be a disaster our country could not survive, as it would prostrate all our agricultural interests by causing an immense increase in our already prodigious overproduc- tion of grain and provisions. There can be no permanent prosperity that does not begin and abide with our farming interests ; when it pros- pers, manufacturing and commercial interests prosper; when it is de- pressed all trades and occupations suffer ; and business every where will continue sluggish until relief is brought about through our agricultural channels. To-day grain-raising in America is unprofitable ; likewise, also, is beef and pork production unprofitable. What will be the condition of the above-mentioned industries when re-enforced by a million wool-growers, to augment the already too great overproduction of our country ? And what an immense sum it will cost the American people when they are compelled to import the great bulk of their wool and woolen goods for home consumption. Do you ask “ What is the present condition of the wool interests of the Ohio Valley?” We answer that at present prices the wool-grower sacrifices at least 5 cents per pound on his wool clip — in other words, even at the unremunerative prices of grain and hay, our wool-growers, by sacrificing their flocks and marketing their grain would gain over the present prices of wool an amount equal to from 5 to 8 cents per pound on all the wool produced. Thus it is that our shepherds by the thousands are fleeing to other occupations, believing it better to labor for poor compensation than by continuing wool-growing at a positive loss, to be compelled finally to part with their inherited property. Do you inquire a remedy for this deplorable state of affairs and a remedy for the business depression of the country? If so, let us hum- bly beg your thoughtful consideration of the following suggestions: By a revision of the present ruinous tariff rates upon imported wool, let the American shepherd have ample protection from cheaply grown foreign wool, sufficient to save him from the positive loss of 5 cents per pound on his wool. While still leaving him poorly remunerated for his labor, this will prevent him seeking other occupations by placing him on a par with the grain grower and meat producer, ancl may re- claim sufficient re-enforcements from our other agricultural interests as in a few years to produce within ourselves wool sufficient for home con- sumption. This will give the shepherd a living chance, and will cost the American people but a trifle more for their woolen fabrics. By a REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 225 restoration of the tariff duties of 1867 upon imported wool (or its equiva- lent), we believe a healthy reaction in the wool interest will soon be inaugurated, enabling us to produce our own wool independent of for- eign countries. This protection granted, and our enormous overproduction of grain will be arrested, by diminishing the number engaged in its production. The same may be said of the cattle and swine interests; a curtailing of the production of each to the extent of 10 per cent, will cause a revival of trade all over our country. We don’t need such a production of grain and of cattle and hogs — it is the bane of our country. We do need an increase of our wool production — an increase of 100 per cent, at least. The want of this increase is the great curse of our country to-day, and the prime cause of the stagnation of trade throughout the land. By the acts of an unwise Congress, the American wool producers are driven to grain raising and meat producing, causing an overproduc- tion and depression in prices of all agricultural products. When the agri- cultural interest of this nation is prostrate the whole country, is paral- yzed. Let our legislators encourage woo] raising to the extent of a fair division of agricultural labor, increasing wool production, and curtail- ing the production of grain and provisions, and all our agricultural in- terests will be booming, and manufacturing and commercial interests will prosper accordingly. Believing that these desirable results can be thus brought about, this association respectfully suggests for your consideration the propriety of recommending the following changes in the duties on imported wools, in the forthcoming report of the Secretary of the Treasury, viz : That in Schedule K (wool and woolens), section 357, we suggest that you recommend all imports in this class, under the value of 27 cents per pound, the duty be increased from the present rate of 10 cents per pound to 12 cents per pound. Likewise, also, that the same changes be recommended in all importations of the second class. And that all wools of the first and second class of the valuation of 27 cents per pound and upward, the duty be increased from 12 to 15 cents per pound. And further, in class third, we suggest a change from 2J to 4 cents on wools under a valuation of 12 cents per pound ; over 12 cents, an increase from 5 to 8 cents per pound. This change proposed is about equivalent to an average increase of 5 cents per pound only — an increase that will at no time be a burden to our people, and will, we believe, act as a stimulant that will, in the near futfire, cause such an increase in the home production as to materially cheapen the price of home-grown wool. Hoping these suggestions may commend themselves to your judg- ment, this association, this day (September 26, 1885) adopt and order forwarded the above address. J. M. STEVENSON, President . J. E. McNAEY, Secretary. S. Ex. 72 15 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 226 [Reply of Ohio wool-growers to Secretary Manning’s circular, wool.] Booms of Ohio Wool-hrowers’ Association, Quaker City, Ohio, November 3, 1885. Dear Sir : Your circular letter addressed to this association, through its president, some time ago, was duly received, and at our semi-annual meeting, held September 2, 1885, on Ohio State Fair grounds, it was unanimously decided to comply with your request, and the following committee were appointed, in as many different sections of the State, to get the actual cost of producing a pound of wool, viz: David Harpster, Pitt, Ohio, president; W. N. Cowden, Quaker City, Ohio, secretary; Calvin Caswell, Castalia, Ohio ; E. J. Hiatt, Chester Hill, Ohio ; John Pow, Salem, Ohio, and S. H. Todd, Wakeman, Ohio. This association first desires to say, through its committee, that it deprecates any sweeping changes in the present tariff laws at the pres- ent time as inimical to the business interests of the country, now recov- ering from a world-wide depression. Capital is now cautiously adjusting itself to the present tariff, and we fear that general agitation would further postpone the full and complete revival of business. There are irregularities that should be corrected, discriminations that are unjust, and omissions that should be supplied. In no schedule are these discriminations more patent than in Sched- ule K, wools and woolens, in which wools of all classes and worsted goods, by mistake or omission, are without sufficient protection, as shown clearly by the experience of the past two years. If these and other changes that will readily suggest themselves were made, this association believes that prosperity would speedily return to all the industries of the country. To your first question, u Should duties on wool be specific or specific and ad valorem?” we answer in general, specific. The wool-growers know that they have suffered greatly in the past by undervaluations of invoices, which ad valorem rates of duty offer temptations to attempt; and we highly appreciate the efforts which you as Secretary of the Treasury have made, and the success attending those efforts to lessen this evil, and we pledge you all the assistance in our power to secure honest valuations of imported wool ; at the same time we are not certain that specific rates of duty alone would be an adequate remedy, and our doubts are increased when we recollect that the frauds so largely practiced during the past two years were under a tariff wholly specific. ' If specific rates of duty are adopted, that they may be just and equal to the growers of all classes of wool there must be a rate for each class ; otherwise a rate that would sufficiently protect the lower grades would afford inadequate protection to the higher grades, and a rate that would sufficiently protect the higher grades would absolutely prohibit the lower grades. With too many rates of specific duty a new danger would arise, and the temptation to undervalue would be greater than under the com- pound rate of the tariff of 1867. We readily admit, however, that these supposed results of a wholly specific rate of duty could be readily avoided by the employment of expert judges of the value of the various kinds of wool. In answer to your second question, u What is the cost of producing a pound of wool in Ohio?” your committee would say that they have taken the utmost care to obtain a full and satisfactory answer to the question from all parts of the State. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 227 We addressed circular letters and had consultations with the most prominent flock-masters of the State, and received answers from over one hundred growers of the different kinds, giving the actual cost of producing a pound of well- washed wool of the class known to commerce as X and XX Ohio wool, and also middle and combing wool is included, as the cost of each is the same as Merino X and XX. The average of one hundred and more answers makes the cost of pro- ducing a pound of wool in Ohio 39J cents. ■We beg your attention to the following explanations and observa- tions on the above-named average price of producing a pound of wool. To secure uniformity the estimates were all based on 6 pounds of wool per head of the above-named grade. Six pounds per head, as is well known, is above the average production of the State, but is the amount produced by all growers who breed and feed with care and skill. We did not propose to ask you to recommend a tariff that would protect, careless or improvident flock-masters, who do not protect themselves by careful breeding and feeding. The wool produced by this latter class costs very much more than the wool included in this estimate. The calculations were made on the average cost of grain, hay, labor, rate of interest, and price of land for the past ten years in different sections of Ohio. These itemized answers to our circular letter piove one thing here- tofore disputed, viz, that wool is produced as cheaply on high-priced land as on low-priced land. Tor example, Erie County growers, on land valued at $100 and over per acre, estimate the cost of a pound of wool nearly the same as the growers in the hilly counties of Southeastern Ohio, where land is valued at but little over one-half as much per acre. The increased productiveness of these lands, taken in connection with the system of mixed husbandry practiced, accounts for this fact, and points to the further fact that as soon as western ranchmen are confined, as they ought to be, to lands owned by themselves, the cheapest wool grown in the United States will be grown in that section, so obviously designed by Providence for sheep husbandry, and now producing the wool known to commerce as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia X and XX wool. We would further call attention to the fact that stud flocks are not included in the above estimate. In these flocks great care, skill, and large amounts of capital are employed, which, if included in the within estimate, would greatly enhance the average price of producing a pound of wool in Ohio ; and yet these very flocks might properly be included, as by supplying breeding stock of the best blood, they have enabled the average grower to get more wool and mutton per head, and thus make the cost of producing a pound of wool in Ohio cheaper. We beg to call your attention to the well-known fact that wool under the tariff of 1883 sold in Ohio at an average below 30 ceuts per pound, showing that the wool-growers, if the above calculation is correct, have sustained a loss of fully 10 cents per pound on every pound sold, or 60 cents per head on every sheep kept. In other words, the wool-grower sells his grain, hay, pasture, and labor at 60 cents per head less than market price. How long can or will the flock-master stand this loss ? It is be- lieved by every member of the committee and by every intelligent flock-master of Ohio that the large decrease of the two past years in number of sheep (the decrease would have been larger if sheep could 228 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. have been sold at any price) and the larger decrease in pounds of wool will continue until we are put upon an equality in the markets created by our industry, skill, and taxation with the Australian and South American grower. Such would only be simple justice, and no govern- ment should ask its citizens and supporters to take anything less. We need not remind you that this was the pledge of the Chicago platform, viz, that the amount of protection u should equal the cost of labor, &c., existing between this and other countries.” Ohio still insists on the restoration of the tariff of 1867 or equivalent specific rates of duty, experience having proved that wool-growing was barely profitable under that tariff*. We favor a retention of the present classification of wools, and would respectfully call your attention to the fact that two classes of wool, viz, very coarse and very fine, or XXX, have never had sufficient protection even under the tariff of 1867. An increase of tariff on these grades of wool and the securing of our own markets to the American wool-grower will, in a decade or two, enable the United States to produce her own wool, and thus render her, in peace and in war, independent of foreign nations, materially help to keep a healthy balance of trade in our favor, and bring untold blessings to those to come after us. Hoping that the inclosed may assist you in making suitable recom- dations to the approaching session of Congress, we are, Respectfully, your obedient servants, DAVID HARPSTER, W. X. COWDEN, CALVIN CASWELL, JOHN POW, S. H. TODD, Committee. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. Lakehome, Mount Vernon, Ohio, November 4, 1885. At the request of the above committee I have read the above paper and exhibits. I fully concur in the conclusions they have reached, with this qualification, to wit : The estimated cost of producing wool is, in my judgment, under or less than the actual cost. C. DELANO, President National Wool- Grower s'* Association. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 229 Statement of David Earpster , Wyandolt County who keeps from 6,000 to 10,000 sheep without any shelter, for keeping 1,000 sheep. 100 tons hay, no charge for feeding $800 00 3,500 bushels corn, no charge for feeding, at 30 cents 1, 050 00 Pasture, seven months, at 10 cents per mouth 700 00 Trimming and keeping down foot-rot 100 00 Shearing and washing 80 00 Interest on cost of sheep, at $2.50 per head .. 150 00 2,880 00 One-half of these sheep are fat sheep and fed for market, and I credit for increase in value on 500 sheep 250 00 Credit for increase over losses on raising 500 sheep 150 00 400 00 Total net cost of 1,000 sheep 2, 480 00 6,000 pounds wool (6 pounds per sheep), costs 2, 480 00 One pound costs 41.33 cents. Estimate of M. J. Caswell, of Erie County, Ohio. For 100 sheep, 1£ pounds of hay per day for one hundred and fifty days, 11 tons, at $9 $99 00 Corn, five months, at $10 per month 50 00 Pasture, seven months, at $12.50 . 87 50 For coarse fodder .’ ; 20 00 Interest on capital in sheep 14 00 For care of sheep, salt, washing, and shearing, &c 26 00 296 50 Cr. By average increase 60 00 Cost of 600 pounds of wool 236 50 Cost of 1 pound, 39.41 cents. Statement of W. W. and J. H. McCall, of Guernsey County, from actual weights of hay and grain. We have by actual experiment proved that a sheep will eat from 300 to 450 pounds of hay, according to size, average 375 pounds per winter and 1 bushel of grain. Counting hay, at $8 per ton, one sheep will eat in hay $1 50 Grain 50 Grass, 10 cents per month 70 Care, 25 cents per head *25 Interest on investment at $2.50 per head 57 3 12 CR. Increase per head .. 60 Six pounds of wool costs 2 52 One pound costs . . 42 230 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Statement of J. M. S. W Willem, of Londonderry, Ohio. 100 sheep, valued at $3 per head, $300, at 7 per cent $21 00 Decrease of value, owing to age, 12| per cent 37 50 Decrease by death from other causes, 2 per cent 6 00 Summer pasture, seven months, at 12-J cents 84 00 Grain feed, one-half bushel oats and corn per day 31 87 Hay, 10 tons, at $7 50 75 00 Rent of buildings for shelter, per year 12 00 Attendance 25 00 Washing and shearing 6 50 298 87 Other labor balanced by manure. 40 lambs, at $1.75 per head 70 00 600 pounds of wool cost 228 87 One pound costs 38.14 cents. [.Dike Brothers, wool.’] Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : New York, August 5, 1885. Dear Sir : Your printed form at hand requesting our ideas as to the desirableness of changes, &c., in our tariff laws. In our article of wool at present all is specific, and we think the law fairly simple and able of honest construction, but we doubt not but that evasions of the law have taken place through loose methods, &c. The writer has acted as merchant appraiser in connection with Mr. A. J. Perry, the general appraiser here, in many cases, therefore we feel as though we had a fair knowledge of all the questions at issue in wool. Our attention was called to the large increase of so-called waste importations, and at our suggestion the assistant appraiser, Mr. Bard- well, took the matter in hand, and we think it was largely due to his efforts that Botany waste was raised from one duty to double duty. There is sure to be some trouble from time to time on the waste impor- tations, and constant care required in that line, but we think the fair rulings, if carried out at all the ports alike, will make these importations in the future honest, which we hardly think was the case in the past. If you will look at the imports of waste at Boston or Philadelphia, as well as New York, we think you will find the growth was large from a small beginning, until some year or more ago, when it was looked af- ter more carefully. We think your appraisers should be requested to look at all waste importations with care. . Again, the question of Scotch white Highland wool : We have little doubt but that considerable frauds were practiced on the Government, but how to arrive at them we cannot say unless detectives were put at work on the other side to find the cost; even then it would be hard to do. We think a firm stand on the part of the Government will scare off' all of that business. We should say that the Government should fix a uniform rate of commission to be allowed as a charge; with regard to charges for bagging, draft, &c., there are many things which were allowed, so that Scotch wool, which long hung on the line of 5§. C. : Sir : We are manufacturers of fancy cassimeres. We were sufferers from the last revision of the tariff, from the agitation of a question which affects all, either directly or indirectly. We earnestly hope you will do all in your power to allay the agitation which will be likely to arise this fall. We hope there may be no change or revision in the tariff. Should there be a change in the wool or woolen tariff, we believe so long as a duty is levied upon wool that the present system of compound duties upon woolens should be maintained. We remain, yours, truly, WALTON & LELAND. [Charles Spencer & Co., Leicester Knitting Mills. ] Germantown, Pa., November 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Sir : * * * yve desire to say further, our main reason for wishing that the tariff on wool and woolens may not be altered is based on the fact that the more the growth of wool is encouraged by protection the 254 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. sooner we shall become a wool exporting country. We shall then be able to compete with foreign manufacturers without the compound duties on woolens, and duties on wool will be no longer necessary. Respectfully, your obedient servants, CHAS. SPENCER & CO. [F. W. & E. Dammann, woolen goods.'] Baltimore, September 28, 1885. Sir : To your circular of 24th July we beg leave to reply, that as we are the only wholesale importing house of woolens — our principal item of business — in this city, we beg leave to defer, in the submission of suggestionsrequested by your circular, to the so much greater interests and experience of our New York, &c., neighbors. We will say, however, that we think a system of only specific duties highly desirable — indeed, necessary — and would wish to see it established, and all ad valorem du- ties abolished, if a practicable way can be found for making the necessary classifications or discrimination in regard to qualities. We have the honor, sir, to be most respectfully, yours, F. WM. & E. DAMMANN. Hon. Daniel Mannings, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. [Frank M. Hobson, woolen goods.] Collegeville, Pa., November 18, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C.: Dear Sir: The undersigned, manufacturer of woolen goods at West Consliohocken, Pa., does hereby desire to protest against any change in the present tariff on wool or woolen goods, as any material reduction of the present tariff would destroy the business, rendering my manufac- tory and machinery of little value and depriving my employes of em- ployment whereby they can earn a livelihood. Twenty-four years of protective tariff has proved, by the vast increase of wealth of the country, to be the true policy of the nation, and as we have on former occasions tried low tariffs with very disastrous effects to the people, we do trust that American manufacturers and employes shall not be injured for the benefit of foreign manufacturers. Respectfully, FRANK M. HOBSON. [Perseverance Worsted Company, tariff legislation.] Woonsocket, R. I., November 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning : Dear Sir: We respectfully and earnestly beg to suggest that for some time there should be no further tariff changes. Trade is at pres- ent only just getting into a healthy state, and any changes will at once REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 255 end to check it and bring about another depression similar to the de- pression existing since the 1883 changes up to tbe past three months. It is needless for us to poiut out that the apprehension of tariff changes at once upsets all business confidence, and has at once very depressing influences upon trade until business men can. determine and arrange their business accordingly. We would suggest that until a thorough and suitable tariff bill is framed to meet the requirements of the business and trade of this country, that the present tariff remain as it is, and that the business men be given a guarantee that for so many years they can rely upon there being no changes, thereby enabling business men to have confi- dence, and that for some time they can figure definitely on a settled basis. Yours, respectfully, Perseverance Worsted Coompany. [Beach & Co., dye stuffs and woolen manufactures .] Hartford, Conn., October , 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington : Sir : In response to your circular of the 29th July, we won Id state that in our business of importers and dealers in general merchandise we give special attention to dye-stuffs, chemicals, and other articles for the consumption of textile manufacturers ; sometimes wool and yarns. Most of the dye-stuffs when in the crude state are already free from duty under the present tariff, and many of the manufactured articles are taxed at specific rates. Some of these rates are so high a-s to prohibit importation. The principal exceptions to specific rates are aniline dyes, including most of the dyes made from coal-tar products, and the various extracts of dye- woods, indigo, &c. If duties are to be retained on these articles they might, in our opin- ion, be readily made specific to a great extent, without deteriment to the revenue or to any business interests of the country. On extracts of dye-woods, &c., we should consider one-half cent per pound on liquid and 1 cent on solid as equivalent to the present tax ; on extracts of indigo, 1 cent per pound on the paste and 20 cents on the dry carmined as a full average, and ample for covering the difference in the cost of labor in this and foreign countries. A specific duty on aniline and kindred dyes, in consideration of the range in prices, might appear to .be unjust; not so, in our opinion. The character of these dyes subjects them to undervaluations by dis- honest importers more than any article with which we are acquainted. Many of them are sold in this country for account of the foreign man- ufacturers, whose processes of manufacture are to a great extent secret, and also, when possible, the composition of the dyes. There is no standard of value, and from their nature there can be none. Conse- quently there is no true market value. A slight difference in shade that happens to be fashionable in any season makes a great difference in price. The quantity of any one color produced makes a great difference in cost. No expert can test these dyes and say what is their value. To a great extent the price depends 256 REPORT* OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. upon the reputation and guaranty of the maker and the seller. They can be, and no doubt have been, invoiced under false names. They can be, and probably have been, introduced into other dyes that are free for the purpose of escaping duty entirely. We believe a uniform rate of 20 cents per pound, with 25 per cent, ad valorem on the home valuation for the highest limit, would raise as much revenue in the long run, and be as much real protection to our home manufacturers, although in some cases it might be nominally less than the present ad valorem rates on the better class of dyes made here. This would be a low rate on the high-cost imported dyes ; but as these do not compete with home manufactures to any extent, and are a substitute for dyes already free of duty, such as cochineal, 'indigo, cudbear, &c., it would be but little if any loss to the revenue if a lower comparative rate of duty should increase the importation of the higher-cost dyes. Even the low grades are now highly concentrated, and the higher prices are more on account of fashion or quality of color rather than the strength of the dye. As in nearly all fabrics* quality of color in a large degree deter- mines the market value, there should be the least possible hindrance placed in the way of the use of the best dyes by our manufacturers. There is no other reason than the expense why the colors of our home fabrics should not be equal to foreign. Although ad valorem duties are. in most cases, more equitable when goods are honestly invoiced, we think under all the circumstances a specific rate for the coal-tar dyes would be for the best interests of the country, the consumers, and the honest importers. Specific duties which may be only a moderate tax when laid fre- quently become excessive after a short time, in consequence of improved methods of production or new sources of supply greatly reducing the first cost. For instance, blue vitriol (sulphate of copper) in 1883, when the pres- ent rate of 3 cents per pound was laid, was worth 5 cents, and now can be bought at 3J cents in this country and about 3-^- or less abroad. Bi- chromate of potash was then selling here at 15J cents, now at 9J; the present value in England being about 6§ cents, the duty of 3 cents per pound amounts to 45 per cent. Bichromate of soda is a new article, used as a substitute for the bichromate of potash, being equally good for some purposes and less cost. Under the similitude clause the duty on this is assessed, and perhaps justly, at 3 cents per pound, equal to about 75 per cent, upon the cost to the foreign dyer. This is an article of large consumption by dyers and calico printers. By the latter, it is used in connection with sugar of lead, worth in Europe now about cents, the duty 6 cents, with the expenses, mak- ing about 100 per cent, above the cost to the foreign consumer. The present market price here 11 to 11£ cents. Other articles might be mentioned showing the unequal effect of specific duties. The most notable illustration of this is wool, as on this staple the baneful effect is most serious. The rates nominally made up upon the basis of 33J per cent, duty are actually about 50 per ceut. upon such fine clothing wools as our manufacturers are now forced to import or to stop their mills. Upon the average qualities now to be found in the markets of the world the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 257 rate would probably be fully 100 per cent., and on many parcels availa- ble to foreign manufacturers the duty would be much higher. It is not so much the prices actually paid by the manufacturer for his materials that makes the difference in the success of his business as whether the cost to him is as low as to his competitors. It is not for the interest of the woolen manufacturer that wool-growers should find their business unprofitable. On the other hand, it is vital to the success of the wool-grower that his only customers, i. e ., the home manufacturers, should be able to do a living business, until he is willing to raise wool for export. - Prices of domestic wools have probably been as low the past two years as they would have been if it had been free of duty, perhaps even lower, and the demand much less, as our tariff favors the import of fine wools in the form of the manufactured fabrics, rather than in the raw state. Our specific duty puts most of the fine foreign wools out of the com- petition of American buyers. The consequence is the foreign manu- facturer buys them at his own prices, and sends us his fabrics at less price, including our high duty, than they can be made by our manufact- urers. Many of our mills are therefore idle. Ad valorem duties are the most equitable when tbe true cost or values of the goods can be as- certained, especially so if based upon home valuation, and honestly collected. It appears to us that the rule of the British Government is eminently just, and might be adopted in this country to the mutual benefit of the whole people — honest importers, and the revenue. The workings of this law in Great Britain, we understand, have proved satisfactory. Goods are declared at their market value at the principal ports of entry. We quote : Secs. 29 and 30. In case of dispute as to the proper rate of duty, importers to de- posit the amount of duty demanded, and such deposit shall be deemed the proper duty payable, unless an action be brought or commenced within three months. In the event of such action being determined against the revenue, full indemnity to be made to the importer. Sec. 57. Where ad valorem goods have been detained as undervalued, the officers must give a written notice of such detention to the person entering the same, and of the value thereof, as estimated by them. If such goods be retained for the use of the Government, the value as entered, with an addition of 5 per cent, and the duties already paid on such entry, to be paid to the owner. So far as the values of merchandise enter at all into the question of the rate of taxation by our tariff, specific duties are undoubtedly based upon the values here rather than upon the costs abroad, which may differ considerably at various points of shipment. The principle of home valuation is therefore acknowledged to be cor- rect by the advocates of specific duties. When coupled with ad valorem rates, it has the further merit of being just. This also avoids the necessity for a complicated classification of articles, for the purpose of meeting the various qualities of widely dif- ferent values. It is simple and easily understood. It takes away the inducement from foreign shippers to undervalue their invoices, and the suspicion by our own people that we are suffering from such frauds, when, perhaps, the trouble in our business maybe nearer home. It bears more equally upon the importers and consumers. Based upon foreign valuations, the highest cost goods pay a higher tax than lower cost, when both are of the same intrinsic value. In rapid fluctu- ations of the markets the same article may pay quite a different rate of duty when shipped from different ports, or only in a few days differ- S. Ex 72 17 258 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE / TREASURY. ence in time ; and the one that can least afford to pay must pay the most. With the present facilities for rapid communication by cables, and transportation by steam, business has become exceedingly close. Our merchants are obliged to compete with those of the whole world. It is, therefore, important that they should be put upon as favorable a footing as the foreign shipper. The latter consigns his goods here, invoiced at the lowest price he considers safe for passing the customs. This may be considerably lower than the American merchant can buy them at the same time. He may be unable to buy them at all without materially advancing the market, as the goods are held by the foreign- ers, who know from their agents here the state of our markets. On high duty goods a moderate difference in the invoice prices would, in the duty alone, give the foreign shipper the business. He is well aware of this advantage, and acts accordingly. Our own merchants are thus forced out of the business, as they cannot compete on equal terms. It is a difficult matter to state, with any degree of accuracy, how far our firm has suffered by the competition we have had from undervalued invoices. In the aniline dye business we have no doubt it has been to a very large amount, this being a class of merchandise, as we have stated before, that no one can state positively what the true market price is at any time, as each maker has his own prices, and no expert can say they are less than they have cost the shippers. This appears to be a case where a specific duty, although about as unequal as the present duty on fine wool, might be the only one which would be fair, as being the only way to serve all importers alike. If there were no considerable variations in prices or quality of im- ported articles there would be no objection to specific duties ; it would be a fair and simple method of taxation; but in the constant change in market values, as in the illustrations before mentioned, and the great difference in quality and values of many articles, a specific duty may be- come very burdensome. When the specific rates of 10 cents and 12 cents tier pound were first imposed upon clothing wools by the acts of 1864 and March, 1807, the values were about double present prices. The duty of 20 cents per pound on washed wool was only about 30 per cent. ; the same duty of 20 cents being now 60 per cent, on the values of the average of domestic washed fleece wools in the home markets ; or, in other words, at the present time the specific duty of 10 cents is 20 per cent, higher than the combined specific and ad valorem duties at that time of 10 cents and 11 per cent. This works in the favor of the foreign manufacturer, who, getting his materials free from taxation, cau, with his cheap labor, pay the high rate of duty based upon the foreign valuation of his fabrics and still under- sell our manufacturers, even if he invoices liis goods honestly. We can see no simple and effectual remedy for this other than a tariff' based upon home valuations, with perhaps light specific duties in special articles where values cannot be readily ascertained, or where the varia- tions in intrinsic value are slight, as in some of the metals and common chemicals. Duties upon raw or partially manufactured materials that are con- sumed by our manufacturers, just so far as they raise the cost of such materials, evidently nullify the nominal protection by the tariff on the finished goods. Just so far they give the foreign competing manufact- urer the advantage over our own, and raise the prices to the ultimate consumer of the goods, and so far lessen his ability to consume. Manufacturers have been induced to invest capital in various enter* REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 259 prises under tbe delusion that they had an advantage over the foreign manufacturer from a “protective” tariff, not knowing that the same tariff enhanced the cost of their products to an equal or greater extent. The materials for many woolen goods are thus increased in cost more than the duty on the finished fabrics, and the manufacture of such goods must result in failure when attempted in this country so soon as they experience the full effect of foreign competition. A judicious increase of the free-list, and a duty upon partially manu- factured materials, graduated somewhat in proportion to the labor and taxes paid for their protection, would inure to the benefit not only of the manufacturer, but more to the ultimate consumer of the manufactured products. No manufacture, unless it be a monopoly, can remain for a long time unduly profitable in this country. Competition is sure to re- duce profits after a short time to the average of other business requir- ing equal capital and skill. Our house has been in business for more than fifty years, and in all that time, as now, closely connected with and interested in various manufacturing operations. From our observation and experience we have learned that a high tariff is not of necessity protection , either to the laborers or to the employers. On the contrary, it is usually a snare and delusion. It is our firm belief that the labor of our country would be better protected and manufacturers be upon a much sounder basis with free ra w materials and a moderate duty upon the manufactured products to com- pensate for our higher cost labor. A tariff that, keeping the present taxes upon spirits and tobacco, would raise such additional revenue as may be required for the needs of the Government would, in our opinion, be quite sufficient. This, with an honest and sound currency, would enable us, with the blessings of our free institutions, educated work-people, and natural resources, to increase and cheapen the cost of all our products, so as not only to increase consumption and the comforts of the masses in our own country, but to secure a fair proportion of the trade of the world. We cannot have this unless we can produce our goods about as cheap as other countries, however favorable may be the treaties we make with non -manufacturing nations. We have hesitated and delayed sending you this letter on account of its length, and not being in exact accordance with the requests in your circular. We understand, however, that you wish for a free expression of the views of business men, which we have given you, leaving you to give them such consideration as they may be worth, in your opinion, and are, Very respectfully, BEACH & CO. [The Keystone Mill, ivoolen manufactures .] Philadelphia, October 12, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , J). C. : Dear Sir: As I understand you to have expressed a desire to get all information as to the effects of the working of the present tariff, I wish to explain the unequal bearing on our special business of cotton and worsted. As we are weavers only, and not spinners also, we of 2 GO REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. course have to buy our yarns either in this country or else import them. Many yarns that we use are not yet made well in this country, and are obliged to import them, and we hud on worsted yarns the average duty and expense is about 79 per cent., whereas the duty on onr manufactured goods, including cost of labor, will not average above 70 per cent., and puts a protection oil these foreign manufacturers equal to 9 per cent. If you notice, you will find the importation of worsted goods and stuff from Bradford, England, is gradually increasing, while other things are falling off, the increase for October, i«885, alone being £30,000, and the whole difficulty of our business is not so much the want of protection as it is its unequal division, from the raw wool up. It is, of course, the purpose of protection to protect labor, but we find in our business that raw mate- rial, i. e ., wool and yarns, are protected more than the manufactured and finished goods, which is equivalent to putting a premium on for- eign labor. Now, if it is the intention to put a just balance of protec- tion on our class of business, each branch should be protected as to the amount of labor that goes into it; that is to say, if wool is protected to, say, 10 per cent., yarns should be protected 25 per cent.; then manu- factured goods 50 per cent. Then labor would be protected through each industry. If you go into the details of the tariff, as no doubt you have done thoroughly, you will find this lop-sided principle of protection in many businesses besides our own. I know that in the umbrella-manufactur- ing business they experience the same unequal tariff. Whereas the cloths are protected at one rate of duty, the Jin'shed umbrella can be imported at the same or less, which, as in our business, puts a premium on foreign labor to make them. As a manufacturer, it certainly would be to my interest to have free trade rather than the present unequal tariff , but the labor throughout the country would have to suffer. It is my desire in this letter to simply call your attention to the unequal discrimination in our business, knowing that as far as your authority goes the business of the country will be benefited by your experience and ability. I remain, very respectfully, yours, A. L. MOORE. [Alfred Dolge, piano felt.] New York, February — , 1885. The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , I). G. : Dear Sir: Agreeable to your wish, I hand you herewith a compara- tive statement of the cost of manufacturing piano-felt in Germany and America, and beg to call your attention to the following explanation: The manufacture of this article is a specialty, which requires consid- erable scientific skill and an unusual large capital. As a matter of fact, 1 would state that there are at present only two factories in England, two in France, four in Germany, and one in America, i. e., mine at Dolgeville, N. Y. The English and French makes are, at present, not competing for this market, because of their inferior quality, while the German make is nearly as good as my own, and the consumers are inclined to favor it simply on accouut of its lower price. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 261 In compiling the annexed statement I have started with a medium grade of wool, and based m t y calculation on the presupposition that the same person starts two factories of equal manufacturing capacity of 50,000 pounds of piano-felt per year, under exactly parallel circum- stances, one of which is situated in Germany and the other in America. The figures given are absolutely correct as to the respective cost price of buildings, machinery, rates of interest, insurance, and taxes, <&c. You will perceive that the American manufacturer is placed at once under great disadvantage in procuring his raw material, in comparison with the German manufacturer, on account of the. duty of 30 cents per pound and the higher freight and custom house charges, which com- pel him to invest a cash capital of $50,000 in his stock of wool, &e., and on which he must pay interest, insurance, and taxes, against only $20,000, which are necessary to stock same with in Germany with the same quantity and quality of wool, &c The German manufacturer has, besides, the advantage of lower rates for interest, insurance, and taxes. The next item is labor, the calculation of which is also based on actual facts, except being well aware that I am paying about one-third higher wages than other woolen mills in this country, because I am forced to employ skilled labor, and must recompense accordingly. It is a well- known fact that in Europe female labor is used much more extensively than in America; hence the extraordinary great difference in cost of labor, which in this case is over 500 per cent. The item u expenses” is positively correct, and can easily be ascertained. A building which would cost in Germany $50,000 cannot be put up in America for less than $150,000, and my factory at Dolgeville, with a capacity of 50,000 pounds, cost even $170,000. Machines which I have bought in Germany for $500 cost, after adding freight, duty, &c., laid down in New York, nearly $1,000, and if the same machine is built in America it will cost from $1,000 to $1,200. Consequently the American manufacturer must invest for building and machinery $140,000 more than his German competitor to make the same amount of felt, and on these $140,000 he must pay the higher rates of taxes, insurance, and interest. In my calculation I figure only 5 per cent, for wear and tear of ma- chinery for both manufacturers, a rate which in these times of progress and invention is decidedly too low, and 10 per cent, is the rate which I actually have adopted in my mills. This rate, if taken for both manu- facturers, would again be so much more in favor of the German manu- facturer that it would enable him, by adding to the price of his goods the present rate of duty, to place the same goods on the New York market fully 25 per cent, lower than the American competitor possibly can produce them. As long as the German manufacturers are contented with a certain share of the trade, and ask, say, only 10 per cent, less for their goods than the American manufacturer, just so long the home-made goods have a chance, provided they are of superior quality, and just so long is the American manufacturer suffered to make a small profit, while his foreign 'Competitor makes a profit of 40 to 50 per cent, on his invest- ment. Such a state of affairs is, however, only possible in times of pros- perity. The very moment that business gets dull and consumption re- duced down goes the price of foreign felts, and the American manufact- urer must cither close his mill or sell at a killing loss. I can prove the above through my books during the ten years from 1875 to 1885, which period allows a fair average. At present I find myself in the latter position. The foreign goods are offered so much lower that I cannot possibly get dollar for dollar; 262 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. hence the increased importation of piano felt, as custom-house entries show; hence the fact that I had to discharge a number of my operators. I beg to point out to you where and how our present taritf, in my opinion, based on my experience, is unjust to the American manufact- urer, and in reality protects the foreign labor and capital and not home industry. The taritf on wool says: When value at last port shall be 30 cents per pound or less, duty per pound scoured, 30 cents. Woolen goods . — If value not over 80 cents per pound, 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem. If value over 80 cents per pound, 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem. Now, if 100 pounds of wool cost in Loudon $48, and it takes 153 pounds of wool, which cost $73.85, 30 cents per pound equals $46.00, or 63 per cent, ad valorem. One hundred pounds of felt made of such wool in Germany cost $120, on which the duty is 40 per cent, ad valorem, $48; 35 cents per pound, $35; total, $83, or 70 per cent, ad valorem. The German manufacturer pays $83 duty ou the manufactured ar- ticle. The American manufacturer pays on the raw material, to produce the same article, the same quantitj 7 , duty $46.50, a difference of $36.50. But against this difference of duty in favor of the American manu- facturer, the latter has the following disadvantage against him: A. Differeuce in wages on 100 pounds of felt $55 00 B. Running expenses of factory 48 20 Total 103 20 Deduct hereof the above difference of 3(5 50 Leaves a balance of 6G 70 against the home manufacturer and in favor of foreign production. In my statement I have put labor against labor, time against time. It is, however, a fact that the average American workman will produce more in a given time than the average workman in Germany, and we have there, in reality, an offset of about $20 on the labor item of my statement. Deducting these $20 from the difference of $66.70, there still remains an undisputable balance of $46.70 against home manufacture, which amount is just about equal to the amount of duty on wool, of which 100 pounds of felt can be made, which the American manufacturer must pay. Unless this duty on the raw material, “ wool,” is taken off', or a specific duty in correct proportion to the duty on wool and the increased ex- pense of manufacturing in America adopted, the woolen manufacturer of America cannot compete with Europe, except in the lower grade of goods, where cheap machinery and comparatively little manual labor is used, because the tariff rates are the same on finer grades as on lower grades of goods. It is a fact, to which I need hardly call your atten- tion, that the finest woolen goods are not and cannot be manufactured here at remunerative rates or at at any profit, on account of the present tariff. AYhenever a woolen manufacturing business requires fine wool, skilled labor, and costly machinery, the manufacturer and his workmen are not protected against cheap labor, cheap wool, cheap machines, and, finally, cheap money, of the European competitors. Four years ago I sent my younger brother to Europe for the purpose of studying the manufacture of broadcloth and other fine cloths, and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 263 it was my intention to start a clotb factory at Dolgeville, in connection with iny felt mill. After four years he came back, with the highest diplomas of Leeds College, as an expert cloth-maker, with the most thorough knowledge of felt industries of England, France, and Germany. Calculations as to the cost of manufacturing these fine cloths here convinced me at once that it is impossible to compete against Europe with our duties-on wool, high-priced labor, &c., and the comparative low duty on the manufactured article, and I am to-day compelled to im- port cloth from Europe and send money there which would give employ- ment to a great number of hands, if I could make the cloth in this country. Finding it difficult to compete against the German piano-felt makers, but anxious to keep my men employed, I started the manufacture of felt shoes; but here again my goods cost about 40 per cent, more than the imported article, and I can sell only a limited quantity because they are of better quality. At present the only alternative for the manufacturer is to either close his factory, or reduce wages — which latter should certainly be the very last resort, because it will create a social question which it may be very difficult to solve, as the critical condition of the labor question in Europe shows us. We must give our laborers more than just a living; the natural resources of the country warrant it. Unless a change in the tariff is made, I must sooner or later give up the struggle and close my mill, because I will not and cannot employ pauper labor. If the present tariff for wool remains in force I should think the fol- lowing specific duty on piano-felt would be just for the importer and the home manufacturer: Duty. Piano-felt, if market value not over $1.20 per pound $1 40 Piano-felt, if market value not over $1.50 per pound 1 50 Piano-felt, if market value not over $2 per pound 1 60 Piano-felt, if market value not over $2.50 per pound 1 70 Piano-felt, if market value over $2.50 per pound 1 80 The home manufacturer should have the right to get from custom authorities the valuations at which his foreign competitors enter their goods. Yours, respectfully, ALFRED DOLGE. COST OF ONE HUNDRED POUNDS PIANO-FEUT MANUFACTURED IN GERMANY. (A) Wool : 100 pounds scoured Cape cost in London $48 00 Freight and shipping expenses to Germany 50 100 pounds scoured Cape cost at factory 48 50 100 pounds of wool make 65 pounds of felt, consequently the wool for 100 pounds of felt costs 74 62 » (B) Labor: Men, 72 hours per week, at $3.60, per hour 5 cents ; women 72 hours per week, at $1.44, per hour 2 cents. It takes 350 hours of work to make 100 pounds of felt, of which in Germany 200 hours are men’s work, at 5 cents per hour $10 00 150 hours are women’s work, at 2 cents per hour 3 00 Total for labor 13 00 2G4 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (C) Expenses. Capital required for plant in Germany : Buildings cost ' $50, 000 Machinery costs 40, 000 Stock necessary to be carried to make 50,000 pounds of felt per year, wool and felt in process 20, 000 Total 110,000 Interest on $110,000 at 4 per cent, per annum $4, 400 Wear and tear of machinery, 5 per cent, per annum on $40,000.. 2,000 Coal, 4 tons per day, at $4 per ton, 500 days 4, 800 Fire insurance, 2 per cent, on $110,000 2,200 Office expense, clerk hire, &c 1, 500 Taxes on real estate, &,c., valuation $50,000, at 2 per cent 1, 000 50,000 pounds of felt can he made at an expense of 15, 900 100 pounds of felt $31 80 119 42 Duty, 40 per cent, on $120 $48 00 35 cents per pound 35 00 — 83 00 202 42 100 pounds German felt cost in New York including duty 202 42 COST OF 100 POUNDS PIANO-FELT MANUFACTURED IN AMERICA. (A) Wool : 100 pounds scoured Cape cost in London $48 00 Freight, shipping, and custom-house expenses 4 50 Duty, 30 cents per pound 30 00 100 pounOs Cape scoured cost at factory 82 50 100 pounds of wool make 65 pounds of felt, consequently the wool for 100 pounds of felt costs Ill 63 (B) Labor : Men work 60 hours per week at $12, per hour 20 cents ; women work 60 hours per week at $4.80, per hour 8 cents. It takes 350 hours of work to make 100 pounds of felt, of which in America 300 hours are men’s work at 20 cents per hour 60 00 50 hours are women’s work at 8 cents per hour 8 00 Total for labor 68 00 (C) Expenses. Capital required for plant in America : Buildings cost : 150,000 00 Machinery costs 80,000 00 Stock necessary to be carried to make 50,000 pounds of felt per year, wool nearly double value, delivered at factory on account of duty 50, 000 00 280,000 00 Interest on $280,000 at 6 per cent, per annum 16, 800 00 Wear and tear of machinery, 5 per cent, per annum on $80,000.. 4, 000 00 Coal, 4 tons per day at $3.50 per ton, 300 days 4,200 00 Fire insurance, 2 per cent, on $280,000 5,600 00 Taxes on real estate, &c., valuation $100,000, at 2 per cent 2,000 00 Office expenses, clerk hire, &c 6, 600 00 50,000 pounds of felt can bo made at an expense of 39, 200 00 100 pounds of ftdt 78 40 258 03 100 pounds of felt made in America, all conditions equal, cost 258 03 100 pounds of felt from Germany, all duty paid in New York, cost 202 42 Difference iu favor of foreign goods 55 61 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 265 [The Vassalboro’ Woolen Mills, ivoolen manufactures.'] North Vassalboro’, Me., July 29, 1885. Hod. Daniel Manning-, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir: The variety in costs, qualities, and styles of our produc- tions is such that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give satisfac- tory answers to the questions in your circular of the 27th instant. It would be very desirable, if possible, to have specific duties on woolen goods, but owing to the variety of values and qualities it would not be practicable to formulate a schedule. The revision of 1883 and the preva- lence of undervaluations have forced us to curtail our production one- half. Yours, very respectfully, R. A. CLOGHER, Treasurer. [Hors well & French, woolens.] Boston, August 26, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Sir: In reply to your circular of July 28, we have to say that we think, after an experience of thirty years in importing woolens, that the present system of compound duties offers as little temptation for fraud as any that can be devised. A purely specific duty would have to be fixed upon the square yard or upon the weight of the goods, and of course graduated according to the quality and cost of the goods, which would offer the same temptation for undervaluation as now exists. We would like to call your attention to one phase of this subject that has caused some trouble to honest importers resident here, and that is the practice of certain houses abroad of offering their goods to the trade here by sample, they not being the makers of the goods, but jobbers, pure and simple. They pay no taxes here, but draw upon their large stocks kept at home and cut into short lengths, such as they obtain orders in this country for, and invoice the goods at, and pay duty on, the price of the manufactures per full piece. In this way they are able to undersell us here. We have to take the risk upon full pieces aud pay duties upon the same, while they send forward only the cut ends, which they sell. We maintain that goods cut into these short lengths should pay a higher duty than the full pieces, or, rather, they should be put up in value above the price of the manufacture per full piece, and that they should be compelled to declare the price at which they have sold the goods as the dutiable value. This would raise the rates upon such cut ends some 20 to 25 per cent, above the prices they are now paying duty upon, and would seem to us just and proper, as the true value of the goods to the parties to whom the goods are sold is, of course, the price they pay. The temptation to frauds and undervaluation, when the average rate of duty is about 70 per cent., will always be great, and we doubt if human ingenuity can devise a perfect system to prevent this so long as the present excessive rate of duty prevails. Very respectfully, HORSWELL & FRENCH. 266 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Nichols & Farnsworth, lastings und serges.] Boston, October 16, 1885. Hon. Secretary of the Treasury: Sir: In reply to your circular of July 28, 1885, asking for informa- tion regarding goods with which we are familiar, would say that of late years oar importations have been confined almost exclusively to “Union” (cotton and worsted) lastings and serges, and that while we have no knowledge of any systematic undervaluation, we are strongly of the opinion that a better mode of assessment could be devised than that now in force. These goods are bought abroad by the piece of 30 or more yards, usually either 28J iuches or 34 inches wide, and are graded by the number of threads in one-quarter of one inch, and are so known to the trade — that is, one counting nine threads is called a nine, one counting twelve a twelve, and so on. As now assessed under Schedule K, all counting sixteen and under pay 18 cents per pound and 35 per cent.; above sixteen, 24 cents per pound and 35 per cent., which is about 66 per cent, on the dutiable value, as the following table of one bale in each width taken from our invoice-book of the past year will show. The odd numbers above eleven threads are very rarely imported. Bale number. Quantity. Quality. Width. Yards. Dutiable value. 1 Weight. Duty. Dutiable value. Square yards. Duty per square yard. 2504 Pieces. 40 Thread. 9 Inches. 28J 1,358 $273 00 Pounds. 501 $185 73 Per cent. 68 1, 075 $0 17 2514 42 9 34 1,414 343 00 616 230 93 67 1, 3: 6 17 2497 42 10 28§ 1,438 302 00 538 202 54 67 1, 138 18 2515 42 10 34 1,416 361 00 647 242 81 67 1,337 18 2517 42 11 28$ 1,426 317 00 547 209 41 66 1, 129 m 2518 40 11 34 1,358 361 00 616 237 23 66 1, 282 18 2520 42 12 284 1,436 339 00 568 220 89 65 1, 137 19 2500 42 12 34 1,425 380 .00 688 256 84 67 1,346 . 19 2505 42 14 284 1,440 368 00 617 239 86 65 1, 140 967 21 2538 30 14 34 1,024 310 00 518 201 74 65 21 2539 42 1G 284 1,478 423 00 710 275 85 65 1, 170 23 J 2548 21 10 31 733 252 00 433 166 14 66 692 24 2553 21 18 284 715 242 00 326 162 94 67 566 29 2553 21 18 34 712 288 00 402 197 28 68 673 29 2545 20 20 . 284 657 281 00 360 184 75 66 520 35 2545 20 20 34" 646 336 00 429 220 56 66 610 36 The first line of the table, read across, shows that bale No. 2504 con- tained 40 pieces of 9-thread lasting, 28J inches wide and 1,358 yards long; that the dutiable value was $273, the weight 501 pounds, and the duty, $185.73, equal to about 68 per cent, on the dutiable value, or reducing 1,358 yards, 28 J inches wide, to square yards, 17 cents per square yard. The other lines are, of course, to be read the same way. In our opinion, the duty should be assessed upon the square yard, and graded according to quality, and if it is the policy of the Government to collect the same amouut it now receives, a fair equivalent would be : All “Union” lastings and serges counting fourteen threads or less in one quarter of an inch, 18 cents per square yard ; over fourteen and not over eighteen, 25 cents per square yard ; over eighteen, 35 cents per square yard. But if the revenue is to be reduced, would suggest the following : All “Union” lastings and serges counting fourteen threads or less in one quarter of oue inch, 12 cents per square yard ; over fourteen and not over eighteen, 17 cents per square yard ; over eighteen, 22 cents X>er square yard. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 267 The two great objections to the present system are: First, that the goods are made to the tariff, that is, when they fall very near a divid- ing line, they are made heavy to decrease the cost per pound, and when unalterably within either rate, made light to lessen the duty per pound. Second, that any decided change of price is liable to throw some grades from one rate into another, makiug it often impossible for the importer to know the cost of his goods until after the liquidation of his entry at the custom-house. Any further information in our possession we would be happy to give you. Yours, respectfully, NICHOLS & FARNSWORTH. [Benj. C. Potts, woolen manufaclvres.'] Philadelphia, Pa., August 15, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 7). C.: Sir: I have from the newspapers your circular asking information and views of manufacturers on the general subject of the operation of the present system of laws for the collection and levy of the Federal revenues by means of tariffs upon importations. In the manufacture of coarse quarter-blood woolen flannels I have compared the cost of our Colorado wools with that of same grade used by a Canadian manufacturer, and find that he can put his scoured wool on his cards for ten cents per pound less than it costs me. This amount in a small three-set mill, using 00-inch cards, and spinning an average of 16 cwt. yarn with about 1,000 pounds raw wool per day of ten hours, aggregates $100 per day as his advantage over me, or $30,000 per year. If 1 spiu warp and filling for 100 looms I should have to run 3 sets double time, or employ 6 sets for that amount of work, using double the above quantity of wool, and be compelled to employ $60,000 more than my Canada competitor. The wages of carding and spinning that amount of wool amount to from $125 to $140 per week of day work, or about $7,000 per year of day work, $14,000 per year of double time. You will readily see how I could largely increase the pay of my hands if I could compete with my Canadian acquaintance upon an otherwise equal basis of cost. In conversation with a California manufacturer of flannels in which I complained of his competition in our Eastern markets, and asked why he did not send his goods to the Pacific States of South America, he demonstrated to me that the same kind of discrimination in our system operated against him and in favor of the English and German manu- facturers to the extent of 25 cents per pound upon the grades of wool he used, or upon the basis of above, from $250 .to $500 per day in the cost of the raw material alone. There is an element of cost in the price of wool here which I cannot explain, but which I think is a consequence of the tariff. I can charter a ten-ton car here to bring wool from any territorial shipping point to Philadelphia for $100, or J cent per pound ; but I am compelled if 1 buy wool here to buy it with freight charges upon it amounting to from 3 to 5 cents per pound. It looks as though the railroad companies and not the wool growers get the advantage of the tariff. 268 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Another matter of which I have no personal knowledge, but which T think may be substantiated with facts, for they are openly stated here, is this : We are compelled to use low grade oils for our stock and ma- chinery because of the high prices of better grades. It is freely stated that certain manufacturers import as soap-stock some of the hnest foreign oils by mixing them with various fatty substances before ship- ping, enter them at low rates of duty, and by simple process here furnish themselves with material of the very best quality for their manufacture. This is a discrimination, if true, not of the law, but of the method of its administration against me and in favor of my domestic, not foreign neighbor. I think raw materials should be free. I think finished manufactured goods should be subjected to such rates of duties as would produee the best revenue consistent with the largest marketable importations. Per- haps all manufactured goods should be so subjected. There is always a normal market for foreign goods. If free of duty, the importations would not exceed that normal market under ordinary conditions. If subjected to duties, either specific or ad valorem, there is a limit within which importations would not decrease. To that limit, with the largest free list possible without injustice, we ought to be able to adjust our- selves. I think it would increase the value, if not the price, of wool to the wool growers by compelling more equable and equitable rates of freights. If, with a tariff gradually adjusted to the basis I have suggested, the navigation laws could be so reformed as to induce the organization of a mercantile marine for the seeking out of foreign markets for our goods, I have not a doubt that every future year would witness the healthy growth of our great industrial interests and the consequent increased happiness of our entire community. Very respectfully, BENJ. C. POTTS. [The same.] Philadelphia, 11, 2, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning: Dear Sir: I reinclose letter of 8, 15, with permission to make such public use of it as you may desire. Much might be added to it, illus- trative of the present condition of things. For instance: I lrad occa- sion some time ago to purchase a cloth finishing machine. I found I could get what I wanted f. o. b., Saxony, for £125 ($625), that freight and insurance would be about $60, but that the tariff and other charges connected with its importation made it no cheaper than similar machines made in Woonsocket for $1,075; and this discrimination against me obtains in nearly every article which I require as capital in my business. I am compelled to employ probably twice as much capital as would be required under fair business conditions, at the same time that the market is growiug more and more narrow by the compulsory competition which the present system produces. Very truly, BENJ. C. POTTS. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 269 [Chas. H. Merriman, woolen manufactures.'] Providence, July 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: I have your circular letter of 17th instant, and note in- quiries contained therein. The business in which I am engaged is the manufacture of woolen goods for men’s wear, made from either for- eign or domestic wool, according to the quality or style of cloth re- quired. As our raw material has to pay a heavy duty we require an equivalent duty on the manufactured article to put us on a par with our foreign competitors. We ought also to have a duty on cloth to cover the duties we pay indirectly on all the supplies which we use and to enable us to pay higher wages then are paid abroad. The true way to put the woolen interests on a proper footing would be to admit wool free or at a very small duty and reduce the tariff on goods to a moderate tariff. I feel sure that in the long run the growers of wool would not be injured by tais policy, and all others would be immediately benefited by it, but I realize that the Western farmers and their representatives cannot be made to see this, and, therefore, it is useless to discuss the question. While I freely admit that it would be a great gain if specific could take the place of ad valorem duties, I cannot think of any method in which specific duties can be applied to woolen fabrics without the great- est inequality and unfairness. The present duty is partly specific and partly ad valorem, the specific being supposed to furnish an equivalent for the duty on the raw material and the ad valorem for the other items referred to above. To make the duty entirely specific would either overtax the poor man’s cloth or admit the rich man’s broadcloth with a very small duty, neither of which things should be done. It will there- fore be absolutely necessary to keep the tariff on woolens about where it is until such time as the Western farmers learn by experience that the high tariff on wool does not benefit them and become ready to let in wool at a low tariff. The last time the tariff was ciianged a larger amount was taken off of goods than from wool, which, of course, worked to the injury of the wool manufacturers, and by destroying their ability to pay good prices for wool has forced down the price of wool much more than the reduction in the tariff on wool would naturally warrant. The farmer seeing this great reduction in the price of his product has laid it to the lower tariff on wool, but the true reason is the lower tariff on goods. The average farmer to day would, if left to himself, restore the duty on wool and leave the duty on goods where it now is, thereby committing suicide, as I fully believe. If the ad valorem duty on goods could be levied upou the value of the goods in this market instead of the foreign value, the greatest fraud could be put a stop to, for it is a notorious fact that unscrupulous manufacturers on the other side are driving honest, decent men out of the exporting business by their meth- ods of swearing to invoices that are purposely made lower than they ought to be. A lower rate of tariff so applied would yield more to the Government than the present tariff, and home industry would be better protected, because fraud would be easier to detect, I have no data upon which to make the comparisons of cost between foreign and do- mestic production, and cannot, therefore, answer the questions in your circular. I can only give my views on the general question, holding myself in readiness to answer any specific questions you may ask. Yery truly, yours, OHAS. H. MEFJtIMAN. 270 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The Philadelphia Textile Association, woolen manufactures .] Philadelphia, September 26, 1885. Hod. Daniel Manning, Secretary , Treasury Department , Washington , _D. C. : Dear Sir: Yonr circular letter addressed to this association, through its secretary, some weeks since, was duly received ; and in reply the managers would say, that while we appreciate your desire to so simplify the customs laws that frauds upon them may be prevented, still we believe that to attempt this by the adoption of specific duties would lead to more serious evils than those which it is desired to escape. Especially would this be the case in Schedule K, wool and woolens, in which this association has the greatest interest. Even if there were no tariff upon wool, we know no principle upon which specific rates of duty in this schedule could be levied ; but when we consider the com- plications that must arise in consequence of a tariff* upon this article we are unable to see a possibility of framing a schedule for wool and woolens without doing great fnj ury to some interests. We are aware that the French tariff* attempts to equalize the rates of duty in the woolen schedule by making the duty dependent upon the number of meters per kilo in the case of yarns, and upon the number of grams per square meter in the case of cloths; but unless wool be spun to the high- est count the stock will bear, rates of duty, levied upon these principles alone, must discriminate against either the higher or lower grades of yarns and. fabrics. Wool costing 80 cents per scoured pound is fre- quently spun to a no higher count than one costing 40 cents; and these two qualities of yarn are woven into cloths having the same number of grams per square meter; hence rates of duty placed upon these yarns, and the fabrics made of them, that would be equitable in the case of the lower grades would be insufficient in the case of the higher; and an attempt to remedy this by making the rates sufficient to protect the higher grades would give rates upon the lower that would be absolutely prohibitory; or which would offer top great a temptation to escape either by smuggling or by false statements of quantities. The truth is, the varying qualities of* wool, we believe, preclude any attempt to frame a schedule of rates for its products which shall be equitable in its appli- cation, and the duty upon it, if possible, makes the task still more difficult. We believe that many of the interests which we represent have suf- fered greatly in consequence of undervalues in invoices, which ad valo- rem rates of duty offer temptations to attempt, and we greatly appre- ciate what has been accomplished by your Department in mitigating this evil, and would gladly render you any assistance in our power to stay it, but after a careful consideration of the subject we see no way to accomplish it iu the line proposed. But even if it were possible to frame schedules of specific rates of duty upon articles of manufacture in which this association is inter- ested, that should be just and equitable to all interests involved, we should deplore an attempt to do so at this time. But little more than two years have elapsed since the present tariff* went into effect, and manufacturers have had to readjust their business to conform to its operations. It has taken the full two years to accomplish this, which in conjunction with the general dullness of trade, which seems to have been world wide, has compelled mauy branches of the industry repre- sented by this association to be run, some at a positive loss, and others with no profit upon capital invested. That readjustment has, in a rneas* REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 271 ure, been accomplished, and there are indications of a better condition of business $ still, in all industries great caution prevails, and we can- not but fear that the country will be set back to the conditions existing the past two years should an attempt be made to revise the tariff by the coming Congress. The great need of the country is rest from tariff* agitation. Respectfully yours, THOMAS DOLAN, President. W. T. SEAL, Secretary. [Tlie San Francisco Pioneer Woolen Factory, woolen manufactures .] San Francisco, September 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , 1). G. : Sir: We duly received your circular of 1st ultimo, asking us to give our views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff by making the duties specific. So far as manufactures of wool are concerned, we not only think it feasible, but very desirable, and suggest one uniform rate of 80 cents per pound on all manufactures made wholly or in part of wool, except yarns. On yarns, made wholly or in part of wool, 50 cents per pound. We add a few illustrations, showing that, on leading articles of im- portation, this rate would be about equal to the present tariff. Com- mon heavy woolens are, to all intents and purposes, shut out by the present tariff, and will continue to be so by the rate above suggested. In the event that a lower rate than 80 cents per pound on manufact- ured woolens be adopted, it would be absolutely necessary to remove the duty on raw material, say, wool, shoddy, &c., or considerably lower the rates. We have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servants, San Francisco Pioneer Woolen Factory, H. HEYNEMANN, President. P. S. — We are not> posted on carpets, and do not know how the pro- posed rate would affect that article. ILLUSTRATION. Shawls, weighing 2 pounds each, costing abroad $30 per dozen ; present duty, 35 cents per pound and 35 x>er cent, ad valorem, equal to $1,574 each ; new duty equal to $1.60 each. Cassimeres, 24 ounces per yard for £, cost abroad $1.75 per yard; present duty, 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem, equal to $1,224 per yard ; new duty, $1.20 per yard. Worsted dress goods, 34 ounces per 27 inches, cost abroad 204 cents ; present duty, 7 cents per square yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem, equal to 134 cents per yard; new duty, 134 cents per yard. Underwear, 10 pounds per dozen, cost abroad $12 ; present duty, 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem ; present duty, $8.30 ; new duty, $8. Worsted yarn, cost abroad, last quotation, 72 cents per pound; present duty, 24 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem, equal to 49$$, cents ; new duty, 50 cents per pound. 272 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TIIE TREASURY. [The Home Woolen Mills Company, woolen manufactures.'] Hartford, Conn., September , 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir: Your circular, dated 29th July, was duly received and has had serious consideration. The subject is of vital importance to the wool and woolen industry of this country, and has received for a long time past considerable of our attention. Want of time has prevented an earlier reply. We have no doubt there have been undervaluations in tbe entry of imported woolens at the customs. By collusion of tbe importer and tbe foreign shipper, especially if the latter is the manufacturer of the goods, there would be little difficulty in evading ad valorem duties, however expert a detective might be employed to make the examina- tions and appraisals. Specific duties upon woolen goods, if not based upon values, are dif- ficult of adjustments that will bear fairly upon all classes and qualities. The higher-cost goods, which are luxuries, would nearly escape, and the low grades, which are consumed by tbe poorer classes, would be heavily taxed. If based upon values, the duties become in a measure ad valorem and subject to tbe same objections. Any efficient appraisal of the finer grades of men’s wear goods, such as are manufactured by the company which I represent, must be based upon such an accurate analysis that it would be difficult to find competent experts. The number of picks per inch is perhaps tbe best single distinction for values, but this is only accurate when taken in combination with other qualities. An ad valorem duty, based upon the valuations in this country, would be the most equitable to all classes. It was the English method, and so far as we have learned worked to the satisfaction of that Government, when there were duties on articles which required ad valorem rates. It is no great hardship to the importer to pay duty in proportion to prices he can realize for his goods, or to have them taken from him at his own valuation, with an addition of 5 per cent. The revenue is also protected. The method is most simple. It avoids many vexations to the importer in the shipments at foreign ports and the temptation for false invoices. Home values are easily ascertained. We do not know that such a radical change would meet with favor by Congress, but we hope the practical working of tbe method, where it has been in operation, may be investigated by the Government. The temptation to the fraudulent invoicing of woolen goods comes from the extreme high rates of duty levied upon them by our tariff. Although so high, these duties are not equivalent to the taxes imposed by the same tariff upon the materials of which the finer classes of these fabrics are made and the necessary articles consumed by the laborers employed. 1 hand you herewith a list of the wages paid in our mill. These will probably be found to be about 50 per cent, higher, on tbe average, than are paid in England, and fully double those paid in Belgium. For some of the skilled workmen there may be a greater difference. Wage rates, however, depend much upon the local supply and demand. In most manufacturing centers of Europe there is a surplus of labor de- pendent upon tbe particular industry which is there located. It cannot be easily transferred to other localities or find employment in other in- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 273 dustries. The rates of wages are therefore .very low as compared with this country. Here, when one industry is depressed for any length of time, the workmen can find other occupations, or, if all others fail, can get a good living for himself and family off from cheap and fertile lands. We must therefore expect high wages for many years to come. Legislation can have but little to do with the rates of wages, in the long run, except so far as by high or low taxes it increases the cost of the comforts and necessities of living. We cannot pay high cost for materials and high wages, and compete with the countries that get both at low cost (and have equal facilities for manufacture) in the prices of our fabrics. The United States Census reports for 1880 give the cost of all the materials consumed by the woolen mills of the country as four times the amounts paid for wages and salaries. This will vary to some ex- tent, according to the class of labor employed; but even if only three times as great, the addition of 20 per cent, to the prices paid by our foreign competitors for our materials will be equivalent to the whole possible difference in the cost for labor. The effect of our present tariff on wool is to give it to the foreign manufacturers at least 40 per cent, below the prices in this country for such as are designated as u classes 1 and 2. v The fabrics demanded by the consumers of this country require about 150,000,000 pounds of these wools in addition to the home clip, taking the weight in the grease, as usually marketed. This must be imported, either in the raw state or manufactured, in the form of yarns or fabrics. The present tariff favors the importation of fabrics, and much the larger portion is imported in that form. The lowest possible duty on raw wool, 10 cents per pound in the grease, on that costiug 30 cents per pound, is 33^ per cent. Actually, there is very little greasy wool now worth 30 cents in foreign markets; aud the little there is, anywhere near that price, sells above its relative value on account of our American competition. The average value of the greasy wools of the world, as purchased by foreign manufacturers, is probably not over 12 cents per pound. The duty on this would be above 80 per cent. The value of such as was imported for the last fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, was only about 20 cents per pound on the average; mak- ing the duty about 50 per cent. At the public sales now taking place in Loudon wools have been purchased as low as 8 cents per pound, to be shipped to the United States. The duty on these will be fully GO per cent., which, with the expenses of importation, commissions, &c., will make the cost to the consumer here fully 70 per cent, above what it would cost the English manufacturer. These wools are bought with reference to the payment of 10 cents per pound duty, and are therefore probably far from being so cheap to the consumer, who has no duty to pay, as many other parcels at the same sales; probably not nearly so cheap as the average. We submit for your inspection, as illustrating this matter, a catalogue of a public sale of 7,250 bales, of which G.277 bales were sold, with the prices obtained for each lot, and the calcula- tion (in red ink) of the duty on each by our tariff. On only 3G2 bales would the duty have been less than 50 per cent. ; on 1,853 bales, be- tween 50 and 60 per cent.; on 1,270, GO to 70 per cent.; on 1,038, 70 to 80 per cent.; on 967 bales, 80 to 100 per cent.; on 696 bales, 100 to 200 per cent.; and above 200 per cent, on 82 bales. Of course nearly all of this wool is out of the range of American competition, and can only be imported in the manufactured state. 3, Ex. 72 18 274 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The low prices at which the foreign manufacturer gets these wools, with his lower priced labor, enables him easily toovercome the high rates of duty on the fabrics. In fact, they are less on the latter than they would be on the .materials from which they are made. The conse- quence is that much of our woolen machinery is idle. Much of that which is running is uot profitable, and we are in danger of a large im- portation of fabrics for the next season, instead of the raw materials. If this wool were free of duty, the prices abroad would be much higher, and the cost to the foreign manufacturers nearly the same as to ours. If there is to be any duty on wools it should be ad valorem, as there is no article of merchandise on which specific ‘duties are so unequal, and no article that can be more readily valued by expert appraisers. Nearly all the wool is also sold at public auction, and the prices obtained are available by our consuls. The duty on wool does not help the wool grower. The effect is to cause the importation of fabrics, whereas, if imported in the raw state, much domestic wool would be used mixed with the foreign, and our home growers would furnish at least half the wool for the goods now made wholly of the foreign. Free wool would also enable our idle mills to start up, and we could, after a short time, ex- port some of our goods, making a foreign market for home-grown wools. The present wool tariff puts every possible obstacle in the way of the manufacturer. The double duty on washed and threefold rate on scoured is prohibition on the importation in these forms. As there is no scoured wool marketed that will shrink less than 10 per cent., the duty is really 37 to 40 cents per pound on clean wool. If advanced one stage towards manufacture it is also prohibitory. The decision that carded or combed wool (“tops”) is subject to double the rate of scoured, i. e ., 60 or 72 cents per pound, renders the importation in this shape im- possible. This is a great advantage enjoyed by the foreign manufact- urer, who, in buying “tops,” can get the exact quality of stock required for his yarns, and in any quantity wanted. In the next stage of manufacture — yarns — the duty is somewhat more favorable, but the lowest possible on fine yarns is at just 80 cents in value=65 per cent. If only a fraction higher cost, the duty is 93 per cent. This is again impracticable, to any great extent, and at the value of $1 the duty is still 75 per cent. As it takes 1J to 1^ pounds of yarns to make a pound of finished goods, and the rate of duty is the same on both, it follows that it is much cheaper to import the cloth ready made than yarns at range between 80 cents aud $1.25. This is the range most required for the manufacture of the finer fabrics, which might be made here to advantage under a fair adjustment of duties. When it is considered that the labor in making the yarns is only about one- third that required for the finished cloth, the “protection” appears to be all in favor of foreign laborers and manufacturers of fabrics. Some of the finer cloths imported from England cost there 28s. per yard, weighing about 1 pound. The duty on such at our compound rates is only 45 per cent. On the materials from which such cloth is made the rate would be very much higher. Such materials are not grown in this country to any extent. No manufacturer could afford to build the plant for making such goods under our present tariff. The consequence is that we must leave such business to. foreign npinufact- urers, who can get the required staple at the lowest cost. Probably more fine wool fabrics are consumed in the United States than by any hundred million people of other countries, taking the aver- age of all tiie inhabitants, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 275 If not hampered by the restrictions of our tariff*, the greater portion of these would, after a little time, be the production of our home mills. The tendency of the consumption is more and more towards the better class of fabrics. This is oue reason why importations of woolen fabrics have continued so large during the time that a very large por- tion of our mills have been idle. The special business of our company is the manufacture of the finer grades of men’s wear, woolen and worsted goods, known as fancy cassi- meres, suitings, and coatings. The cost of the same varies according to weight and quality, from about $2 per yard to above $3 for cloth one and a half yards wide. The principal article of consumption is wool. About one-half of this is domestic growth, and the remainder is mostly Australian. The quality is fine merino. Silk is largely used in these goods, mostly of American manufacture, bought in the form of fine thread or yarns, and costs from $5 to $13 per pound. The duty on this article is 30 per cent, and 50 per cent., and the cost here is fully as much as the foreign cost, with the addition of the duty. At present a large part of the wool is purchased in the form of yarns (worsteds). Some of these are domestic manufacture, but mostly made of Austra- lian merino wool, with probably an admixture of home- grown. There is but little home-grown wool suitable for the best grades of these yarns. We are now obliged to import a considerable portion of our yarns, but are restricted in this to such quality as can be entered at the lowest rates of duty. On such qualities as would be the most desirable, i. e ., costing about 85 cents in Europe, the duty would be 69 cents per pound, equal to about 80 cents on the yarn required to make a pound of finished goods. These goods, if of foreign manufacture, would probably be invoiced, at not above $1.20 per pound. The duty on the ready-made goods would be only 83 cents per pound. The duties on the chemicals, oils, &c., used in making the goods, would more than make up the three cents. There is, therefore, no protection whatever by the tariff. On the contrary, the duties paid in a season, to run a mill on these yarns, would be much more than the amount required to pay duties on the ready-made goods. There is an unavoidable damage to more or less goods, which have to be sold at half price. A very large quantity of cloth is required for samples, for which the manufacturer gets nothing. Interest . — In addition to the interest on the cost of plant, about a year’s interest must be paid upon the cost of labor and materials, to cover the time between the payment and purchase, and the collections for the goods sold, buildings, machinery, &c. Our mill is built of brick, about 330 by 50 feet, with four floors, and basement. Wool house, dye-house, and picker-house are in separate buildings, also the boiler house. Steam is used for dyeing and heating. The mill is run by water-power. The cost of the power, dam, canals, flumes, &c., was about $100,000; the buildings for manufacturing purposes cost more than $100,000^ and the machinery, consisting of 18 sets of woolen cards and seventy looms, has cost at least $150,000. The company also own tenements, for the use of the operatives, costing above $100,000. The whole cost of the property has been above $500,000. It stands upon the present company’s books about $150,000. 276 REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. They have owned it about five years, having bought it from a previous company that was for a time successful, but in the changes of business were at last obliged to give it up. The location is a good one, about three hours from New York, and close to a railroad station about fifteen miles from tide- water. The business, as with many other woolen mills the past tew years, has not been successful. The losses have been made entirely in manufact- uring, and not by bad debts. The endeavor to keep the mill running through the past three years of depression, in order not to scatter the employes, has probably resulted iu about the same loss as would have been made by stopping the mill and selling out the stock when it was evident that the business must be unprofitable. It has been hoped that there would be a revival of the business which would allow of its being done at a profit. The very low prices for wools in Europe were not anticipated, and the full effect of our tariff not understood. Goods, such as are made by this mill, are wanted by consumers of this country, but under the present tariff on wool and woolens the competition from European manufactures is such that only a very few •mills that are the best situated in regard to reputation, skilled work- men' surplus capital, and other favorable circumstances, can succeed. The enstoms returns prove that the foreign manufacturers have the advantage. Even under the great depression in the woolen business here, when a large portion of the mills of the country were stopped in part or en- tirely, the importations of woolen manufactures for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1885, fell off only about 20 per cent, as compared with the previous year. The imports of wools of classes one and two for the same period were only about 50 per cent, of the previous year. If these few raw wools had not been imported more machinery would have been stopped, and the goods would have been imported ready made as fabrics or clothing. In the manufacture of these wools here a considerable portion of do- mestic wool was used, which would not have been if the fabrics had beeu imported. The duty on wool is a damage to the wool -grower. A moderate tariff on the manufactured goods with free wool would not raise prices of the fabrics so as to interfere with full consumption by the laboring classes. It would be of more benefit to the wool-grower than to the manufact- urer, as it would start up and increase the machinery, and make a de- mand for the wool. It would give the grower what he most needs, customers and compe- tition for his wool. The home grown will be used, so far as suitable, before the imported. Under the same conditions it will have the prefer- ence. Free wool would raise prices abroad to a point that would make the cost here such as to enable our growers to compete favorably on the qualities adapted to their several localities. It would give them a steady market, and tend to bring them in direct communication with the consumers, saving the profits of speculators. It is now seldom the case that the grower gets the advantage of an ad- vance iu market values. The total amount of wool brought into the country each year entirely free of duty, in the form of clothing, must be very large. Nearly every REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 277 passenger arriving at onr ports brings with him more or less in excess of what he would bring if the cost of good-quality cloths here did not rule so much above the same in Europe. With free raw materials there would be no inducement after a little time. The advantages of the European manufacturers of fine woolens are, then, labor at half to two-thirds the cost in this country ; some dyes and chemicals, probably at an average of two-thirds ; machinery at half to two-thirds; repairs on machinery, probably about one-half; olive oil necessary for fine worsteds, about two-thirds ; fuel at less than half the cost in the Eastern States ; wool at but little if any more than half the cost. In the latter, not only the lower prices, but the access to all the wools of the world, from which to make selections of such qualities as he can use to the best advantage. This also leads to a division of operations to a far greater extent than is practicable in this country. The “top” maker selects his wools; the yarn- maker his tops; the cloth-maker his yarns, each in such quantity and of such quality as his orders may require. To get what he needs he is not obliged to take a large proportion of such as he does not want, as is the case here, where the manufacturer has to either make a proportion of goods not adapted to his business or to resell wool to a decided disadvantage. All of these advantages enable the foreign manufacturer to do his business upon a much smaller capital. His fabrics being produced at so much less cost, the losses by dam- ages or imperfections are much smaller. All the above disadvantages are the direct effect of the jjresent war tariff, with the exception of labor; and that to some extent, in conse- quence of the higher cost of living, it establishes for the workmen. We think these are in themselves enough to account for the depres- sion of our business the past few years, although we have no doubt this has been aggravated? in a measure, by a practice of undervaluation of imported goods. In our particular Dranch of the business, however, nearly all the for- eign goods are manufactured on orders, and the whole product of par- ticular styles confined to one buyer, or at least one for this country. No other buyers in this country are allowed to have the same pattern, and it is not sold in the open home market. As there is or may be a material difference in the cost of each pattern, specific duties will be unequal. The cost is sometimes enhanced more than 50 cents per yard by the addition of silk. In other patterns, of nearly the same general appearance, 10 cents would cover the cost of the silk. A specific duty that did not take this into account would probably throw all of the manu- facture of the higher cost into the hands of foreigners. If the present duty on the silk yarns remains in force, the effect on our home mills would be worse than from any probable undervaluation. If desired, we would with pleasure submit samples of raw material, or goods in any stage of manufacture your Department may designate, or give any information in our power that may assist the Government in arriving at a full understanding of the situation of the business and the effect of the revenue laws upon its success. We are willing to sub- mit for inspection all the materials and operations employed in the fab- rication of the goods, and the actual cost of the same. We trust in the pledges of the party in power “ to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests “ in making reduction of taxes not 278 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. to injure any domestic industries, but rather to promote tlieir healthy growth.” We are satisfied this can be done, so far as our special busi ness is concerned, without detriment to either producers or consumers; that “ sufficient revenue to pay all the expenses of the Federal Gov- ernment, economically administered,” &c., “can be got from taxes on fewer imported articles, bearing heaviest on articles of luxury”; that if the raw materials necessary for our manufactures are made free, such taxes for revenue will incidentally give us all the protection needed for our industries, if graduated in proportion to the amount of labor. Our labor will continue to receive higher compensation than in any other country. We shall thus command a superior order of workmen, and be able to compete with other nations for the business of the world. Our commerce will be revived by this means more than by any amount of subsidies, however lavish. I have perhaps trespassed too much upon the time of your Depart- ment in so fully accepting your invitation to give expression of our views on the general subject indicated, and I fear not in such form and manner as you may have wished or expected. My excuse must be the deep interest I have been forced to'take in the subject from the position in which I have been placed and the de- cided conviction that a study of the practical workings of the present tariff has given me that it is opposed to the prosperity of our home industries. We only ask that the subject may be fairly investigated and the facts be plainly stated without regard to theories, which, although plausible at first sight, do not stand the test of actual practice. It is a misnomer calling a measure that taxes our industries out of existence a protective tariff. Trusting the action of Congress may be such as will be for the best interests of the whole country, and believing that such action will have the hearty support of the present administration, I remain, very respectfully, yours, CHAS. M. BEACH, Treasurer Home Woolen Mills Company. Wages paid. Per day. Wages paid. Per day. Foreman on repairs $3 50 ' 1 Helpers $1 00 to 1 10 Wood workman and machinist $2 50 to 2 75 ! Spoolers 50 to 75 Painter, piper _ _ 2 00 j Boss dresser 2 75 Outside hands 1 50 t 1 Dresser tenders 1 75 Watchmen 1 62$ to 1 75 Winders (boys and girls) 65 to 80 Firemen and en'nneer 2 00 I Spoolers (boys and girls) 50 to 60 Boss sorter 3 00 ; Boss weaver 3 75 Sorters ahnnt 1 75 Fixers .... 2 25 Boss dyer 5 00 Percher 1 75 Second hand 1 50 Filling carrier 1 62* Scourers 1 35 to 1 50 ! I Pattern weavers. &c 1 25 to 1 50* Dye-house hands - 1 12$ to 1 25 i 1 Weavers 1 35 to 1 57 Boss carder 4 25 Boss burler 2 50 Secoud hand . . 2 25 1 Sewers-in (women) ' 1 10 to 1 50 Cleaner 1 25 Burlers (giris) 70 to 80 Pickermen 1 00 to 1 50 Boss fuller and gigger 3 00 Boys 50 to 1 00 ; Second hand 1 62$ Boss spinner 3 50 : Gig hands, washer, &c 1 12$ to 1 37$ Second hand 1 50 Boss finisher 4 00 Boss mnle-spinner _ 2 50 1 Shearmen 1 40 to 2 50 Twister girls 80 ! Pressman 1 50 Hand-jack spinners 1 40 to 1 50 S Dryer and brush hands 90 to 1 12$ Mule-spinners 1 45 to 1 62 J 1 Speckers 80 to 85 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 279 At the London Docks wool-floor. FROM SYDNEY. Grease, first combing, superior, extra skirted, light in grease Grease, first combing Do Do Grease, second combing Do Grease, clothing Grease Grease, black, two sorts Grease, pieces Grease, bellies Grease, super combing Do Do Grease Grease, combing Grease, fine cross-bred Grease, combing Do Do Grease, pieces — Grease, fine x-bred Grease, combing Do Do Scoured second pieces Scoured third pieces Grease, combing Grease Grease, pieces and bellies Scoured pieces, 49 locks Scoured locks Grease, combing Gi ease, pieces Grease, locks Grease Grease, pieces Grease, locks Grease, x-bred Grease, x-bred, pieces Grease, combing Grease. Scoured pieces Scoured bellies, .002, part locks Grease, extra fine X com Grease Grease, damaged Grease, com. W, fine x-bred Grease, com. E, fine x-bred Do Grease, com. E, x-bred, 196, two sorts Grease Grease, black Grease, damaged Scoured pieces, x-bred Scoured bellies, x-bred, 025, two sorts Scoured, locks, x-bred Scoured pieces, 4, two sorts Scoured bellies Scoured locks Grease Scoured pieces, 61, 78, two sorts Scoured bellies Scoured locks Scoured screenings Grease, combing Grease, 194, part combing Grease, damaged Grease, combing Grease, combing, H Grease, combing Grease, combing, damaged Scoured pieces, x-bred Scoured bellies, x-bred Scoured locks, x-bred, No. 063, two sorts Combing First x-bred, two sorts Second x-bred Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Bales. s. d. Per cent. 22 0 Hi 43 42 10i 47 45 101 47 2 9 54.8 7 10 49.3 19 9§ 51.9 6 »i 51.9 3 9 54.8 1 8 61. 625 17 7 70. 44 12 5 i 90 12 51.9 45 9 54.8 4] 9 54.8 4 8 61. 625 20 8 61. 625 1 9| 51.9 15 0 9 54.8. 51 0 8i 58 13 0 8i 58 1 0 5i 90 3 0 8i 58 5 0 9 54.8 16 0 8§ 58 4 0 8 61. 625 9 0 10i 140 1 0 9i 155. 875 17 0 9i 51.9 14 0 9 54.8 7 0 5| 90 3 1 n 109.6 4 0 10i 140 22 0 8i 58 4 0 4i 109.6 1 0 2\ 197 25 0 6i 75. 1 6 0 4l 109.6 3 0 3 164.4 2 0 6£ 75. 1 1 0 4 123 8 0 8i 58 1 0 8 61. 625 4 1 2J 102 2 0 101 140 21 0 9£ 51.9 3 0 8 61. 625 1 0 8 61.625 3 0 8i 58 50 0 9 54.8 45 0 8i 58 3 0 7i 65. 75 16 0 8 61. 625 1 0 6* 75.1 3 0 8 61. 625 30 1 tt 109. 6 8 0 10J 140 4 0 9 164.4 23 1 102 5 1 1 113. 8 3 0 9 164.4 27 0 6 82 24 1 2 105. 666 6 1 0 123 5 0 10 147.5 1 0 8 184.9 36 0 6£ 75.1 8 0 5| 90 1 0 51 90 2 0 51 90 18 0 8 61. 625 25 0 7| 65. 75 1 0 6i 75.1 13 0 ll| 128. 625 4 0 10 147.5 5 0 8J 174 15 1 3 65.7 1 0 10 98.5 1 0 10* 94 280 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. At the London Doclcs wool-floor — Continued. FROM SYDNEY— Continued. Combing Grease Grease, Hoggett’s Grease, No. 12, two sorts Grease, combing Scoured, combing Grease, mixed Mixed Grease, combing, No. 1, part black Scoured Grease, combing Grease, combing, E Grease, first combing Scoured black Scoured black, two sorts Grease FROM MELBOURNE. Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Bales. 8. d. Per cent. 2 1 0 82. 2 2 0 7fc C5. 75 9 0 7 70. 44 8 0 7 70. 44 6 0 64 75.1 1 0 94 164 1 0 5 98.6 1 0 4 246.6 6 0 64 75. 1 1 0 8 184.9 14 0 7 70.44 28 0 64 75.1 9 0 8§ 58 2 1 2 105. 666 1 1 04 118 2 0 104 47 Grease, 71, two sorts Scoured, 49, two sorts Scoured pieces Scoured pieces Grease, super combing 38 6 4 1 1 0 64 1 2 0 104 0 8 0 94 75.1 105. 666 140 184.9 51.9 FROM NEW ZEALAND. Grease, combing 30 0 9 54.8 Grease, combing 30 0 84 58 FROM ADELAIDE. Scoured black Do Scoured locks Scoured first lambs’ Do Do Scoured, second x-bred Scoured, first x-bred lambs’ Scoured, first Scoured, second Scoured black, two sorts Scoured locks Scoured, first x-bred Scoured, second x-bred Grease, lambs’ x-bred Grease, lambs’, two sorts Grease, lambs’ tallow, damaged Grease, lambs’ Do Grease, lambs’ tallow, damagefl Grease, lambs’ Grease, lambs Grease, lambs, super Scoured, first combing Do Scoured, first combing, and black Scoured, second combing Scoured, second combing, 32, two sorts. Scoured, first pieces Scorn ed, first pieces, x-bred Scoured, first locks Scoured, second locks Scoured, first lambs, 13, two sorts Scoured, two sorts Gr ease, super combing Grease, super combing, damaged Grease, super combing Grease, x-bred lambs Grease, combing ”, Scoured Do Scoured, damaged 2 o 114 128. 625 10 0 84 174 4 0 8 184.9 6 1 0 123 20 1 0 123 11 0 104 140 3 0 7 211 4 0 10 147.5 2 1 04 118 2 0 94 164 1 0 84 174 1 0 54 269 2 1 0 123 1 0 84 174 3 0 6 82 1 0 5 98.6 1 0 5 98.6 1 0 54 90 l 0 54 90 1 0 5.V 90 1 0 6 82 1 0 7 70. 44 3 0 64 75.1 9 1 44 90 2 1 1 113.8 1 0 94 164 4 0 10 147. 50 2 o 84 174 2 0 84 174 1 0 84 ; 174 6 ! 0 84 | 174 1 , 0 64 227.6 2 0 8 * 174 1 0 6 246. 5_ 6 o 74 65. 75 1 0 7 70. 44 3 0 8.4 58 1 o 6.4 75.1 12 0 84 58 22 0 9 164.4 5 0 7 211 1 0 64 227.6 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 281 At the London Docks wool-floor — Continued. FROM ADELAIDE— Continued. Scoured, x-bred, 3, two sorts Grease, super combing Grease, lambs Grease, combing Do Grease, X and black Grease Grease, lambs, two sorts Grease, combing Grease, lambs fine x-bred Grease. S. Grease, combing . Grease, combing Grease Grease, 6, two sorts Grease, X lambs Grease, combing Grease, lambs, two sorts Grease, super combing Grease, second Grease, x-bred, 2 parts merino Grease, x-bred Grease, super combing Grease, lambs, two sorts Grease, super combing, x-bred, 4 parts merino Grease Grease, super combing Grease, bellies and pieces Grease, lambs and pieces Grease, combing, x-bred Grease, lambs Grease, two sorts Grease, combing Scoui ed, second Scoured pieces Scoured locks Scoured, first lambs Scoured, second lambs Scoui ( .!, first pieces Scoim d. second pieces Scoured, first locks Scoured, second locks Grease, combing Grease Grease, lambs Do Do Grease, super x-bred Do Grease, black and x-bred Grease, two sorts x-bred Grease, Lincoln Grease, lambs x-bred Grease, lambs x-bred, two sorts Grease, lambs x-bred Scoured, mixed Scoured, first combing Scoured, fleece Greasd, lambs Scoured, first, second, and third Scoured, fleece and locks Scoured, first combing Do Do Scoured, second combing - Scoured, lambs, two sorts Scoured, x-bred, two sorts Grease Do Do Scoured super combing Scoured, two sorts Scoured Scoured, R Scoured locks Grease, combing, E Grease, SF Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Bales. &. d. Per cent. 2 0 4 227. C 10 0 8! 58 5 0 6 82 7 0 7* 65. 75 8 0 7 70. 44 1 0 4 75. 1 3 0 7 70. 50 1 0 5 h 90 2 0 8 61.625 1 0 6 h 75.1 5 0 6 82 2 0 7* 65. 75 9 0 61 75.1 5 0 n 63. 75 9 0 7 70. 5 1 0 6* 75. 1 9 0 8 61. 625 1 0 4 75. 1 2 0 8 61.625 2 0 7 70.5 2 0 8 h 58 2 0 7a 65. 75 2 0 9 54.8 1 0 4 75.1 4 0 9| 51.9 10 0 6 82 3 0 9 54.8 4 0 4h 109.6 1 0 4 141 3 0 n 65.75 1 0 4 75.1 1 0 n 65. 75 9 0 10 49.3 1 0 14 128. 625 4 0 9 164.4 1 0 269 1 1 l 113.8 1 0 9! 164 3 0 10 147.5 1 0 8 184.9 3 0 7 211 4 0 6 246.5 3 0 8 61.625 6 0 5 h 90 4 0 7 70.5 4 0 5 h 90 1 0 5| 90 3 0 7 70.5 2 0 7* 65. 75 1 0 6 82 1 0 4 75.1 1 0 7 70.5 2 0 6 82 1 0 5 98.6 1 0 4h 109.6 2 0 8 184.9 1 1 0£ 118 2 0 10 147.5 1 0 6 82 1 0 7i 197.4 1 0 8 184.9 4 1 n 95.5 2 0 14 128. 625 1 1 2£ 102 2 0 lo! 140 1 0 10 1-17. 5 1 0 10 147.5 76 0 5k 90 25 0 •4 90 27 0 4 90 4 1 4 84. 5 2 1 5 87 1 1 4 90 2 1 2* 102 1 0 11 134 5 1 0 io| 140 34 0 9 54.8 1 0 9 54.8 282 REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, At the London Docks wool-floor — Continued. PROM ADELAIDE — Continued. Grease, part black. . - Grease, pieces . . Grease, pieces, belly Grease Grease, locks and pieces, ex. “Orontes” Grease, first combing Do Grease, boggetts . Grease, boggetts, damaged Do Grease, lambs Grease, H Do Do Grease, boggetts Grease, ewes Grease, first lambs Scoured fleece Scoured first pieces Scoured second pieces Scoured belly pieces Scoured belly pieees, damaged Scoured third pieces Scoured S Scoured locks, damaged Scoured skin Scoured skin, two sorts Scoured lambs Scoured lambs, second Grease, boggetts Grease, hoggetts, damaged Grease, ewes, 77, two sorts Scoured pieces Scoured pieces and locks Combing Bellies and pieces Locks and pieces Grease, lambs Grease Scoured locks Grease, combing, boggetts Grease, combing, ewes Grease, combing, W Grease Grease, damaged Grease, combing, hoggetts Grease, first combing Grease, second combing Grease, damaged combing Grease, first clothing Grease, second clothing, 172, pt. 1st Grease, damaged Grease Grease, x-bred Grease, x-bred, damaged Grease, first combing Grease Do Grease, damaged Grease, two sorts Grease, x-bred Grease, x-bred, two sorts Grease, combing Do Grease, combing, damaged Grease, combing, stud Grease, combing, stud, damaged Black Grease combing Do Grease, broken Grease, lambs Grease, hoggetts Grease Scoured A fleece Do Scoured B fleece Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Bales. s. d. Percent. 1 0 9 54.8 19 0 8 61. 625 7 0 5£ 90 12 0 8 61. 625 1 0 4 123 12 0 10 49.3 9 0 9* 51.9 31 0 9£ 51.9 1 0 9 54.8 32 0 9 54.8 1 0 7£ 65. 75 12 0 9 54.3 13 0 Si 58 27 0 8i 58 14 o 10 | 47 51 0 10 49.3 11 0 10! 47 4 1 5! 84. 50 6 l 4! 90 5 1 3! 95.50 4 i H 109.6 1 l 0! 118 2 o 10 ! HO 2 0 11 134. 50 1 0 8! 174 1 o 10 ! 140 1 o li! 128. 625 5 1 3 98.6 1 1 3 98. 6 5 0 9! 51.9 1 0 8! 58 23 0 8! 58 2 0 11 134. 5 4 0 9! 155. 875 10 1 4 61.625 1 0 9 109.6 1 0 6! 151.7 15 0 7! 65. 75 24 0 9 54.8 1 0 9! 155. 875 18 0 10 49.3 64 0 9! i 51.9 19 0 9! 51.9 2 0 8! 58 7 0 8! 58 13 0 10 49.3 13 o io ! 49.3 14 0 9! 51.9 6 0 9 54.8 13 0 9! 51.9 24 0 9 54.8 3 0 9 54.8 2 0 7! ! 65. 75 3 0 8! ! 58 1 0 8’ 58 17 0 9 54.8 10 0 9 54.8 6 0 8! 58 4 0 9‘ 54.8 3 0 7! 65. 75 1 0 8 61. 625 1 0 8! 58 4 0 9' 54.8 4 0 8! 1 58 3 0 8! 1 58 8 0 9 54.8 1 0 9J 1 51.9 4 1 0 10! 94 36 0 9! 51 9 36 0 9 54.8 49 0 9! 51.9 2 0 6! 75 7 0 7! 65. 75 6 0 9 54.8 12 0 9 54.8 9 1 6 82. 20 3 1 6 82. 20 7 1 4| 90 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 283 At the London Docks wool floor — Continued. Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Bales. 13 8. 1 d. 2 Per cent. 105. 666 11 1 5 87 2 1 1 113.8 10 0 U| 0 10i 128. 625 5 140 1 0 9J 8 155.7 9 0 61.625 1 0 11 90 2 0 6| 8 75. 1 17 0 61.625 40 0 n 7 65. 75 Do 39 0 70. 44 4 0 7 70. 44 1 0 6| 3 75.1 7 1 98.6 0 11 134. 5 Scoured pieces . .... ................... 8 0 94 H 9 164 Scoured, two sorts 1 1 • 109.6 Grease, combing 6 0 54.8 Do 13 0 8| 2* 8 58 Do 15 1 68 Grease 11 0 61.625 Grease, combing 51 0 H 9| 4 58 Grease, fine x-bred 8 0 51.9 Grease, pieces 9 0 123 Grease, combing 23 0 84 9 58 Grease, fine x-bred 9 0 54. 8 Grease, bellies 3 0 4| 8J 2| 2 109.6 Grease, combing 25 0 58 Do 23 1 68 Do 20 1 70. 50 Clippings 2 0 n 8 131. 50 Grease, combing 14 0 61. 625 Grease, x-bred, fine 9 0 84 7| 6 58 Grease, combing 4 0 65. 75 Grease 17 0 82 Do : 11 1 1 65. 75 Grease, combing 19 0 7 70. 50 Grease, combing, part x-bred 1 0 8 61. 625 Grease, combing 14 0 8 61. 625 Do 40 0 8 61. 625 Do 43 0 7| 65.75 Grease . ... 15 0 5| • 90 Scoured locks 4 0 9 164.4 Grease 1 0 5! 90 FROM QUEENSLAND. Grease, 1st combing, E Grease, 1st combing, H Grease, 1st combing, W Grease, first and second rams Grease, first pieces Grease, second pieces, No. 95, 2 sorts Grease, second pieces and B Grease, bellies Scoured pieces, D Scoured locks Scoared clips ' . 27 0 9| 51.9 g 0 9 54.8 5 0 9 54.8 4 0 9 54.8 7 0 7 70.5 2 0 6| 75.1 1 0 5 98.6 3 0 5J 90 2 0 11 134.5 3 0 9i 155.7 1 0 6* 227.6 FROM SYDNEY. Grease, belly pieces Grease, belly pieces, damaged Grease, belly pieces . Grease, belly pieces, damaged, Grease, combing Grease, two sorts Grease, belly pieces Grease, combing Grease, black Grease, x-bred 18 1 7 1 16 3 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5| 90 5 98.6 5 98.6 34 141 84 58 8 61. 625 34 141 9 54.8 94 51.9 9 54.8 284 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. At the London Docks wool floor— Continued. FROM SYDNEY— Continued. Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Bales. 6 8. d. 0 84 0 7\ 0 8~ Per cent. 58 65. 75 61. 625 3 Do Do 3 0 74 0 74 0 84 65.75 Grease, combing, damaged 1 65. 75 Do 3 58 Do 2 0 9 54. 8 Grease, black 1 0 10 49. 3 Grease, combing 35 0 9 54. 8 Grease, combing, damaged 3 0 8J 58 Grease, combing . 3 0 84 0 8 58 Grease, combing, damaged 3 61. 625 Scoured 12 1 5 87 Do 2 0 10 147.5 Mixed •_ 1 0 6 104. 4 Scoured, two pieces __ 34 1 li 0 74 1 2 109. 6 Do 11 197.4 Scoured, first 3 105. 666 Scoured, pieces 3 0 114 1 04 1 2 134. 5 Scoured, first, dead wool 7 ] 18 Do 1 105. 666 Scoured, second, dead wool Scoured, third, dead wool 10 3 o 104 0 10 140 147. 5 Scoured, two sorts Mixed 1 ] 0 9 0 10 164.4 98.5 FROM QUEENSLAND. Scoured first, combing 15 1 44 1 3 90 Scoured, first clotbing, 412, part combing 6 98. 6 Scoured, two sorts 1 l 14 0 114 1 3 109. 6 Scoured, skin . 2 128. 625 Scoured, pieces 11 98. 6 Do 23 1 3 98, G 98. 6 Scoured, belly pieces 5 1 3 Do 5 l 14 0 11 109. 6 Scoured, second pieces _ 4 134. 5 Scoured, second and third skin 3 0 10 147.5 • Scoured, two sorts 1 0 94 0 7 155. 7 Scoured, S pieces 2 211 Scoured, screenings _ _ _ 1 0 8 184. 9 Scoured, X combing and pieces 2 0 10 147. 5 Scoured, two sorts 1 0 10 \ 140 Scoured, locks l o 74 0 8 197.4 Grease, first combing 32 61. 625 Do 30 0 8 61. 625 Grease, first clothing 48 0 7 70. 5 Do ! Grease, second clothing 1 Do 14 23 4 0 7 0 6* 0 64 70.5 75. 1 75.1 FROM MELBOURNE. Grease, broken 16 0 7* 65. 75 Scoured, super black 1 1 2' 105. 666 FROM NEW ZEALAND. Grease, x-hved lambs 9 0 84 o 94 0 9 58 Do 3 * 51. 9 Do 2 54. 8 Grease, x-bred 16 0 8 61. 625 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 285 At the London Docks wool-Jloor — Continued. FROM ADELAIDE. Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Grease Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Grease, damaged Grease, belly pieces Grease, lambs Grease, B, lambs Grease, lambs, and black fleece Do Do Do Do Grease Grease, damaged Grease, broken Grease, lambs .• Grease, lambs, damaged Bales. 53 53 53 53 53 53 59 8 25 1 28 34 17 1 50 50 50 46 8 1 2 14 1 . d. Per cent. 0 7* 65. 75 0 8 61. 625 0 7* 65. 75 0 7* 65. 75 0 74 65. 75 o 74 65. 75 o 74 65. 75 0 7 70.5 0 7 70.5 0 6 82 0 5 98.6 0 6 82 0 5 98.6 0 6 82 0 7* 65. 75 0 7 70.5 0 7 70.5 0 7 70.5 0 64 75. 1 0 6 82 o 44 109. 6 0 54 90 0 5 98.6 FROM SYDNEY. Grease, first combing , Do Do Do Grease, first pieces — Grease, black Grease, first, lambs — Grease, second, lambs 65 o 94 51.9 60 0 9 54.8 44 0 9 54.8 40 0 9 54.8 6 0 7 70.5 2 0 9 54.8 22 o 74 65. 75 30 0 7 70.5 FROM QUEENSLAND. Scoured skin 5 j 13* 95.5 FROM MELBOURNE. Scoured, super combing Scoured, first combing Scoured, combing Scoured, second combing Scoured, super combing Grease Second lambs Grease, fine x-bred pieces Gre se, U, fine x-bred pieces First combing Grease, combing Grease, first x-bred, No. 23, second Combing Grease, first lambs Extra Scoured, super clothing — <■ Scoured, A, first combing, x-bred Scoured, super combing Do Scoured, first combing Grease, combing, fine x-bred Do Grease, x-bred Grease, x-bred, fine combing Grease, x-bred, fine seven, two sorts Scoured, extra super combing, two bales Hoggett’s 30 1 84 72. 20 27 1 81 72. 20 20 1 84 72. 20 16 1 64 80 23 1 84 72. 20 25 0 9 54.8 6 0 10 98. 50 9 0 7-4 65. 75 3 0 54 90 24 1 5 57 37 0 9 54.8 6 0 64 75. 1 8 1 2 70. 50 10 0 9 54.8 2 1 6 54.8 8 1 3 98.6 4 1 7 77. 875 18 1 84 72 ?0 18 1 84 72. 2o 7 1 64 80 6 0 9 54.8 7 0 84 58 5 0 9 54.8 6 0 9 54.8 8 0 9 54.8 23 1 64 80 286 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, At the London Docks wool-floor — Continued. FROM MELBURNE — Continued. Quantity. Price. Percentage of duty. Scoured super combing ...... .............. Bales. 11 s. d. 1 5i Per cent. 84. 50 Scoured, first combing 5- 1 5“ 87 Scoured, first J-bred 1 0 lli 1 li 128. 625 Scoured 16 109. 6 Srnnrprl t.hirrl skirts .. _ _ 19 0 10£ 0 Si 140 Grease, first x-bred ... 14 58 Do 3 0 8* 0 8£ 58 Grease, part black 1 58 VICTORIA. Scoured, super snow-white 15 1 8 74 Scoured 2 1 6 82. 20 NEW ZEALAND. Scoured, x-bred 6 0 9 164.4 Extra super clothing.. Do Do Do Extra second clothing. Do Do Do Do Do Extra third clothing. .. Do Extra first combing... Do Extra skirts Extra pieces Do''.'.*.'.’*."’!! Extra locks Extra lambs QUEENSLAND. 10 i | 1 8 74 10 1 H 80 20 1 1 6i 80 29 1 7 77. 875 12 1 6 54.8 16 1 5* 56. 36 9 1 5h ! 56. 36 10 1 5* 56. 36 13 1 54 I 56. 36 15 | 1 H 56. 36 6 | 1 4i 1 60 6 1 1 44 60 29 1 6 54.8 20 1 5J j 56. 36 14 1 44 j 60 15 | 1 1 65. 75 14 1 04 78.9 8 1 1 65. 75 3 0 9 1 09.6 4 1 7 52 FROM SYDNEY. Scoured, super combing Scoured, first combing Do Scoured, second combing, 383, part super Scoured, first pieces Do . Do Scoured, black Scoured, first x-bred Scoured, super combing Scoured first combing Scoured, third, 281 pt. fleece Scoured, second pieces Scoured, locks Scoured, mixed Grease Do Grease, clothing E stud Grease, second clothing E stud Grease, first lambs , Scoured, first pieces Do 87 87 92.5 92.5 95.5 98. 6 98.6 92. 5 95.5 90 113.8 161.4 155.7 174 211 75.1 54.8 54.8 65. 75 128. 625 140 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 287 At the London Docks ivool-Jloor — Continued. PROM ADELAIDE. Quantity. Price. Percejatage of duty. Grease, super com, 3 bs Bales. 50 s. d. 0 J0| Per cent. 47 Do • 47 0 10 49.3 Do 10 0 8£ 0 7 58 Grease, first pieces 8 70.5 Grease, second pieces 11 0 5* 90 Grease, belly pieces 10 0 4 & 109. 6 Grease, lambs 41 0 65. 75 Do 7 0 5 98.6 12 0 6 82 Grease, lambs 2 0 5i 90 Scoured, first pieces 13 1 11 109.6 Scoured, second pieces 3 0 9 164. 4 Scoured, first locks 3 0 7 211 Scoured, second locks 1 0 51 269 Scoured, first locks 18 0 197.4 Scoir ed, second locks 4 0 6 246. 5 Scorred, third locks 1 0 4 370 49 0 6 246.5 bo 3 0 5J 0 4 90 Grease, pieces ^ 6 123 Grease, lambs 4 0 6 \ 75.1 Grease, super first combing stud Grease, first combing 5 0 101 47 15 0 81 58 Do 7 0 71 65. 75 Grease, second combing 5 0 8 61.625 Grease, first clothing. .. 11 0 71 65. 75 Grease, second clothing 19 0 7 70. 44 Do 5 0 7 70. 44 Grease, first pieces 2 0 71 65. 75 Grease, second pieces 24 0 8 61. 625 Do 6 0 71 0 7 65. 75 Grease, first lambs 24 70. 50 Grease, second lambs 10 0 5 98.6 Grease, two sorts 1 0 71 65. 75 Scoured, fleece, part black 1 1 3 98.6 Scoured, mixed 1 1 3 98.6 Scoured, pieces 12 1 n 109.6 Scoured, belly pieces 21 1 2| 102 Scoured, S pieces 12 1 01 118 Scoured, locks 26 0 '9 164.4 Do 6 0 8 184. 9 Grease, first combing, stud 22 0 91 51.9 Grease, first combing 40 0 8 61.625 Do 38 0 71 0 7 '65. 75 Do 23 70. 50 Do 50 0 7 70. 50 Do 42 0 7 70. 50 Grease, broken 19 0 71 65. 75 Grease, first lambs 20 0 6 82. 19 Grease, second lambs 18 0 41 109.16 Scoured, best 30 1 4 92. 5 Do 28 1 4 92.5 Do 25 1 4 92. 5 Do 18 1 4 92.5 Do 21 1 3 98. 16 Do 11 1 21 0 111 102 Scoured, second 14 128. 625 Grease, combing 17 0 7“ 70.5 Grease, pieces Grease, lambs .. 2 0 31 141 1 0 61 75.1 JACOMB, SON & CO., 61 Moorgate Street , London. July 9, 288 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The Home Woolen Mills Company, wool and woolens.'] Hartford, Conn., November — , 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: In response to your valued letter of the 13th October, asking for my views as to the rates of duty which should be imposed upon such goods as our company produces, provided wool should be put upon the free list, &c., I respectfully submit that in my opinion, ou our fabrics — (1) With wool, and other articles of consumption, free, 25 per cent, ad va lorem, upon the market values in this country, would compensate for the higher cost of labor, insurance, machinery, and perhaps interest and local taxes. To this should be added the enhanced cost of other materials con- sumed in the manufacture of the fabrics, in consequence of the duties imposed thereon by the same act; such as silk yarns, soaps, chemicals, oils, certain dyes and various articles known as supplies. For these 5 per cent, additional, making in all 30 per cent, ad valorem on the home valuations, would place the business ou a healthy basis, iu my opinion. In making such a radical change, the date should be fixed for it to take effect, some time ahead, to allow the business of the country time for preparation. The duty on raw materials should be removed, in part at least, several months before it is taken off' from the manufactured goods. The woolen manufacturers are obliged to purchase their raw materials, for fine fancy cassimeres and cloths iu particular, six to twelve months be- fore they can realize for the proceeds of thein fabrics. Most of the manu- facturers have probably purchased, some time since, the whole of the wool for the spring goods of 1886, and are now making patterns and estimating the cost for those of the autumn. Duties on partially manufactured articles should be somewhat in pro portion to. the labor expended upon the raw materials. Thus with wool free, a duty on carded or combed wool, u tops,” of 10 per cent, would prob- ably be ample for building up the business of combing ; and 20 per cent, on yarns afford all the protection that would be necessary for the busi- ness of wool and worsted spiuning. For the manufacture of fine woolen fabrics there is three times or more labor required than for making the yarns. The risk of damage and loss on the cloth, iu many ways, is also many fold greater, and it takes much longer to turn the capital. There- fore a duty of 30 per cent, on the woven fabrics is not more than an equivalent for 20 per cent, on the yarns. The above rates are all based upon home valuations. It is my firm belief that these rates could be re- duced after a year or two years’ operation, without detriment to the wool or woolen interests of the country, if they should be considered at all burdensome to the consumers and not required for revenue. In fact, such an adjustment of duties would greatly increase the consump- tion of wool and woolen goods in this country; and probably lead to considerable export trade in both. If the imports of some qualities and kinds of woolen manufactures should be increased in consequence of the lower duties, the exports of others which could be made here to advantage would probably fully compensate, and the free inter- change of products would be a mutual benefit. (2) Your second request for an opinion as to “ the rates of duty which should be levied upon such articles, in case wool shall continue subject to the rates of duty now imposed,” is not so easily answered to my own satisfaction. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 289 A fair adjustment of simple rates upon fabrics is rendered impossible by the peculiar nature of the specific rates, and the restrictions upon importations of the raw materials. -These involve the necessity of com- pound duties, especially if based upon foreign invoice values, in fact, the existing complicated system, or some other nearly as complicated. Even then this can hardly be made to bear fairly upon all qualities of fabrics, starting upon such a false basis. If the present duties remain on yarns, at least 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem should be added to cloth costing above $1 per pound; making the rates 45 cents per pound and 50 percent, ad valorem on the foreign valuations, or the same specific duty, and 30 per cent, on the home, duty paid, valuation, to give fine cloths an average protection. In case a duty altogether specific should be considered advisable, the most equitable, in my opinion, would be that based upon the number of picks in the square inch. In this opinion I have been sustained by such manufacturers as I have so far found willing to give the matter due consideration. I believe it to be at least a general rule that the expense of manufacturing woolen goods, in most of the operations, is very nearly in proportion to the number of picks, although other items enter into the question of cost, as the more or less expensive dyes and the quantity of silk used ; the difference in these items alone being frequently more than 50 cents per pound for fabrics otherwise of the same quality. It would not, however, be far from a fair adjustment of the duties, in making them specific, to add to the rate per pound (either of 35 cents, as it is now, or 45 cents, which is nearer to an offset for the duty on fine raw wools) J cent per pound for each pick per square inch, count- ing both warp and filling — this addition to be in lieu of the present ad valorem. In counting the picks the silk threads should be included, and those composed of two threads should count as one and one-fifth picks each, and those composed of more than two threads as one and three- tenths each. The advantages of this method over that based upon ad valorem rates on foreign invoice values are freedom from temptation to under- value and absolute exactness without depending upon the opinions of appraisers or experts. These should fully compensate for any extra trouble there might be in the appraisal. Herewith I hand schedules, as requested, made upon the basis of the opinions above expressed. I believe them to be as fairly adjusted, to meet all classes interested, as it is practicable to make them, having in view the giving to our home industries an equal chance in competition with foreign manufacturers in our own markets. Schedule A I believe to be for the best interests of the whole coun- try, including wool-growers, manufacturers, and consumers. Schedule B is the present high u protective ” tariff; corrected to some extent, so far as it discriminates against the home manufacturer of fine goods and in favor of foreign fabrics, otherwise leaving all the objec- tionable features in force. Schedule O made upon the same basis of protection as B, but sub- stituting duties purely specific, with exception of yarns, which it is im- possible to classify without having regard to values. Schedule D, still starting upon the present basis of 10 cents per pound on unwashed wools, is only a fair adjustment of material in other con- ditions and the manufactures in the various stages, adopting home val- uations. S. Ex. 72—19 290 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. I a in fully aware that there are many manufacturers who, for various reasons, will not favor the views herein expressed ; but trusting they may be deemed worthy of consideration, I remain, very respectfully, CHAS. M. BEACH. A . — Schedule for duties on manufactures of wool provided the raw material should be duty free. ON VALUATIONS AT THE PORT OF ENTRY, DUTY PAID. Per cent. Wool carded or combed 10 Wool waste, shoddy, &c. , and noils SO Woolen and worsted yarns 20 Woolen cloths and felts, and all other manufactures composed wholly or in part of wool 30 Yarns of silk and wool, and silk yarns suitable only for weaving 20 Woolen clothing of all kinds, or partly manufactured 40 All the above to be assessed upon the market values at the port of entry, at the time the goods are declared. If the principle of this schedule should be adopted, any duty laid upon importa- tions of wool should be added to the rates as above, for the other articles. Ad valorem rates are the only equitable tax upon an article so variable in value as wool; and there is no important article of merchandise the true value of which can be so readily and so fairly estimated, with perhaps the exception of cotton. B. — Schedule for duties on woven fabrics of worsted or wool, provided the present rates are imposed upon the raw materials and upon yarns, based upon foreign valuations. Woolen or worsted cloths, shawls, and all other woven fabrics, made wholly £r in part of wool, worsted, or other like materials, and weighing over 4 ounces per square yard, value nt>t exceeding 80 cents per pound, 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem; values above 80 cents aud not exceeding $1 per pound, 40 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem ; values above $1 per pouud, 45 cents per pound and 50 per cent, ad valorem. As the duty on scoured wool is. 30 cents or 36 cents per pound, according to the value, aud it takes 1-J pounds of clean wool to make a pound of finished goods of the finer qualities, 45 cents per pound duty on the goods is not an offset for the duty paid on the wool alone. The cleanest scoured wools available will not yield more than 90 per cent, of clean wool. The above rate of 45 cents per pound and 50 per cent, is not more u protection” than the wool-grower demands. C. — Schedule for duties on manufactures of wool, provided the raw material, classes 1 and 2, are subject to the rates imposed by the present tariff. SPECIFIC RATES. Cents. Wool tops, including all combed and carded wools, costing at the place of ship- ment to the United States under 60 cents per pound per pound. . 30 Over 60 cents per pound do 40 Noils, shoddy, waste, &c . do 15 Yarns of worsted or wool or mixed with other materials : Value under 30 cents per pound do 18 Valued at 30 cents and under 40 cents per pound do 20 Valued at 40 cents and under 50 cents per pound do 27 Valued at 50 cents and under 60 cents per pound do 33$- Valued at 60 cents aud under 70 cents per pound do 40 Valued at 70 cents and under 80 cents per pound do 47 Valued at 80 cents and under 90 cents per pound do 53 Valued at 90 cents and above do 60 Cloths, and all other woven fabrics of which wool, worsted, hair, or other like materials form the principal component part do 35 and in addition thereto 4 cent per pouud for each pick per square inch, counting both warp and tilling. Picks composed of two threads, twisted together or other- wise, to count as 1.2 picks; and if composed of more than two threads to count as 1.3 picks each, including threads* of silk or other material. REVISION OF TIIE TARIFF. 291 D . — Schedule for duties on wool and woolens , provided the present tax of 10 cent, per pound is imposed upon wools imported unwashed , classes 1 and 2. Cents. Unwashed wool, classes 1 and 2 per pound.. 10 Washed wool, classes 1 and 2 do *15 Scoured wool, classes 1 and 2 do 20 Combed or carded wool, tops, &c do 30 Or, in lieu thereof, 33£ per cent, on the market value at the port of entry. Noils, waste, and shoddy per pound.. 15 Yarns of wool, worsted, or other like materials, or of which wool shall be a component part, ad valorem, on market value at port of entry per cent.. 37| Cloths and all woolen fabrics, or composed of mixed materials, wool or worsted being the chief component part per cent, ad valorem.. 45 On values at the port of entry — clothing do 50 [James McCreery & Co., wool and woolens .] New York, December 1, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir: We have the honor to hand you herewith the schedule for wools and woolens referred to in our letter of the 25th ultimo. You will observe that our woolen schedule naturally follows our silk schedule, and that in the former we have made no provision for mixed fabrics containing “ wool worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals” combined, with “five per centum or over by weight of silk,” such fabrics being provided for in our silk schedule. # # # # # # * Very respectfully, JAMES McOREERY & CO. SCHEDULE RECOMMENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SCHEDULE “k” OF THE PRESENT TARIFF LAW. I. All wools, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, unwashed or washed, free. (See 352 to 359 of present law.) II. Wools, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals on the skin, free. (See 360 of present law.) III. Woolen rags, shoddy, mungo, waste, and flocks, free. (See 361 of present law.) IV. Wooleu and worsted yarns, and all yarns made from the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of which wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals shall be a component part, the remainder being some other textile than silk, 25 cents per pound. (See 363 of present law.) V. Goods in the piece not hereinafter specially enumerated or provided for, com- posed wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of which 75 per centum by weight shall be wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, the remainder being some other textile than silk, 9 cents per square yard and 35 cents per pound. (See 363, 364, and 365 of present law.) VI. The same when containing less than seventy-five per centum by weight of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, the remainder being some other textile than silk, 6 cents per square yard and 25 cents per pound. (See 362 and 365 of present law.) VII. Hats, caps, bonnets, webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, galoons, fringes, gimps, cords, cords and tassels, dress trimmings, laces not * The above rates of 10 cents on unwashed and 15 cents on washed wools are more than 45 per cent, on the average values of the domestic wools in the principal markets of this country for the past year. _ Therefore 45 per cent, on cloths is not higher than the wool duty. 292 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. made by hand, head-nets, buttons, and orDaments, composed of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of which wool, worsted, the hair of the al- paca, goat, or other animals shall be a component part, the remainder being other tex- tile than silk, 80 cents per pound. (See 362, 363, and 308 of present law.) VIII. Laces made by hand, composed of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, $2 per pound. (See 362 and 363 of present law.) IX. Knit goods and all goods made on knitting-frames not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of which wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other ani- mals shall be a component part, the remainder being some other textile than silk, 60 cents per pound. (See 363 of present law.) X. Articles made up in whole or in part by the tailor, seamstress, milliner, or manu- facturer, composed wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other ani- mals, or of which 75 per cent, by weight shall be composed of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, the remainder being some other textile than silk $2 per pound. (See 366 and 367 of present law.) XI. The same, when composed of less than 75 per centum., by weight, of wool, wor- sted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, the remainder being some other textile than silk, $1.50 per pound. (See 366 and 367 of present law.) XII. Provided, however, that no article made up, in whole or in part, by the tailor, seamstress, milliner, or manufacturer shall be admitted at a less rate of duty than would be imposed upon the materials of which it is composed if imported separately. (See 366 and 367 of present law.) XIII. Blankets, shawls, scarfs, handkerchiefs, curtains, screens, table, stand, piano, and other covers, except as hereinafter provided for, when woven whole, shall be classified as goods in the piece under paragraphs V or VI, and when composed of two or more pieces joined together they shall be classified as articles made up in whole or in part under paragraphs X or XI. (See 362 and 363 of present law.) XIV. Goods, wares, and merchandise classified under paragraphs V to XI inclusive shall be subject to the following rates of duty in addition to the rate or rates herein- before provided, viz : XV. When embroidered wholly or partly with silk or metal, $1 per pound, and when embroidered with some other textile than silk or metal, 75 cents per pound, which shall be levied upon the entire weight of the piece or article embroidered. XVI. Aubusson, Axminster, Chenille, Saxony, Wilton, Tournay velvet, Turkish, Persian, Indian, and oriental carpets, rugs, mats, screens, covers, and bedsides woven whole, 20 cents per square foot. (See 369, 370, and 378 of present law.) XVII. Aubusson, Axminster, Chenille, Saxony, Wilton, and Tournay velvet car- petings imported by linear measurement, 90 cents per square yard. (See 369, 370, and 378 of present law.) XVIII. Brussels carpetings, rugs, mats, screens, covers, bedsides, and other portions of such carpets or carpetings, 42 cents per square yard. (See 371 and 378 of present law.) XIX. Patent velvet and tapestry velvet carpetings, rugs, mats, screens, covers, bed- sides, and other portions of such carpets and carpetings, printed on the warp or other- wise, 36 cents per square yard. (See 372 and 378 of present law.) XX. Tapestry-brussels carpetings, rugs, mats, screens, covers, bed-sides, and other portions of such carpets or carpetings, printed on the warp or otherwise, 30 cents per square yard. (See 373 and 378 of present law.) XXI. Treble ingrain, three-ply, and worsted-chain Venetian carpetings, rugs, mats, screens, covers, bed-sides, and- other portions of such carpets or carpetings, 18 cents per square yard. (See 374 and 378 of present law.) XXII. Yarn Venetian and two-ply ingrain carpetings, rugs, mats, screens, covers, bed-sides, and other portions of such carpets or carpetings, 12 cents per square yard. (See 375 and 378 of present law.) XXIII. Druggets and bookings, printed, colored, or otherwise, 18 cents per square yard. (See 376 of present law.) XXIV. Hemp or jute carpetings, 6 cents per square yard. (See 377 of present law.) XXV. Hassocks, carpets, and carpetings of wool, flax, or cotton, or parts of either, or other material not otherwise herein specified, 40 per centum ad valorem. (See 378 of present law.) XXVI. Endless belts or felt for paper or printing machines, 25 cents per pound. (See 379 of present law.) XXVII. On all goods, wares, and merchandise not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, made wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or partly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, the remainder being some other textile than silk, 40 per centum ad valorem. In ascertaining the percentage by weight of wool worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, contained in any fabric, the threads containing wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, combined with some other textile than REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 293 silk, shall be weighed and classified as they would be if composed wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals. Goods, wares, and merchandise composed of wool, worsted, the hair of the nlpaca, goat, or other animals, combined with other textile or textiles, when containing less than 5 per centum by weight of silk, shall be classified as if they contained no silk. Respectfully submitted. JAMES McCREERY & CO. New York, December 1. 1885. [Rushville Shawl Mills, woolen shawls .] Rushville, III., November 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir: My attention to the tariff on woolen goods by the inclosed circular has disturbed me more than I care to admit. 1 hoped that the tariff on woolens had been settled lor years to come. We all agreed to the reduction of 1883, although it was hurtful, on the understanding that the disturbing of confidence should cease until at least the working of the present arrangement could be tested. It does seem to me to be an unfortunate thing that this thing cannot be let to rest. We cannot compete if there should be a further reduction, and this enterprise would have to close without a doubt. We manufacture shawb, the best goods, weighing 40 ounces, the wool to day costing, unwashed, 24 cents per pound." This wool loses from 60 to 65 per cent., making the wool cost for each shawl 40 cents per pound, or $1 per shawl ; we pay for labor $1.60 on each shawl, the dyes, oils, and fuel, together with incidental expenses, costing to day 75 cents on each shawl. This does not include interest on capital in- vested in plant and other ways, which is about original cost of plant, $90,000 for plant alone. Now we receive net cash, less freight, $3.70 for this shawl, costing $3.50 at least, and manufacturing about 50 per day. I appeal to you as a business man to place yourself in our place, and then to do all you can to stop this tinkering with the industries of the country. Eespectfully yours, LESTER GORDON, Superintendent. [Cazenovia Woolen Company, woolen goods . ] Cazenovia, N. Y., November 23, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the United States Treasury : Dear Sir : As manufacturers and their employ 4s have suffered severely from the recent agitation of the tariff question, we all hope that there will be stability enough in the present administration to let the matter rest for the present, and that the business men shall have some assur- ance of this fact, that there may be a season of prosperity under the new rule. I am, sir, most truly, yours, J. F. GREEN, Agent. 294 report of the secretary of the treasury, [L. W. Faulkner & Sons, woolen manufactures.'] Lowell, Mass., November 17, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , B. (j. : Sir : We are running 32 sets wool cards for ladies’ and men’s wear, and do respectfully assert that as long as the present duty is maintained on wool it is absolutely necessary for our industry to maintain itself that the present system of compound duties be kept as they are, and we do sincerely pray that there be no change at the next session of Con- gress of the tariff on wool or woolens, as it will unsettle our business, and we cannot compete with the foreign manufacturers without free wool, very low-priced labor, and a reduction of all values of real estate, which would cripple us for some time. All of these three changes would be unjust to a great many people. Yours, respectfully, L. W. FAULKNER & SONS. [J. H. Abbott & Co., woolen goods and yarns.] Gouverneur, N. Y., November 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning: Sir : In response to your circular of July 18, we would say that the wool clip of the United States for 1883 was something over 300,000,000 pounds, netting the growers more than $100,000,000. The slight re- duction in the tariff in 1883 on the product of worsted wools increased very largely the importation of worsted yarns, and the construction of the law by the customs officers in relation to worsted cloths (which construction may not have been intended by the framers of the bill) in- creased also the importation of worsted cloths. The result was, our yarn mills were shut down, our markets were filled with foreign worst- eds ; consequently quite a large percentage of our woolen machinery has been idle. Wools accumulated and prices declined to a point that they were unremunerative to the grower. Any further reduction in the tariff on wool would, in our judgment, exterminate the wool industry of this conntry. We believe it should be fully protected, and so long as there is a duty on wool it is indispensable that the manufacturer should be correspondingly protected, and also protected against the cheap labor of Europe. We therefore believe that the present system of compound duties is the most feasible one that can be adopted, and we dread any legislation, knowing that the interests involved are so immense and so intricate that they must materially suffer under the uncertainties of any discussion in Congress. What we most need is a permanent basis to work from, and it would be very gratifying if our business interests could be placed outside the realm of politics. Very respectfully, J. U. ABBOTT & CO. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 295 [D, R. Campbell, cassimeres , cloakings , and repellents .'] Sangerville, Me., November 20, 1885* Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : My Dear Sir: As a woolen manufacturer having $200,000 invested in the business, I wish to enter my protest against any change in the present existing tariff on wool and woolens. That in case of any revision of the tariff in our next Congress, so long as a duty is imposed upon wool it is indispensable for the prosperity of the woolen manufacture that the present system of compound duties upon woolens should be strictly maintained. I am, respectfully, yours, D. R. CAMPBELL. P. S. — I have been in this business over thirty-five years, and know of what I am talking about.. [The American Woolen Company, Barry Mills.] Barry, III., November 10, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury : Dear Sir : Any further reduction in tariff’, in our opinion, would be fatal to the woolen industries of this country, and would give to Euro- peans the advantage which for years they have most desired. In Great Britain Americans are most unblushingly informed that the English are born manufacturers, whilst citizens of the United States are good only as farmers, and had better stick to the plow. Beyond an ardent desire to get the thin edge of the wedge into Ameri- can trade, Europeans have no further interest in the welfare of the country, and we are satisfied that the present Administration, being held in high favor by the people, are not going to reduce their record by permitting any further arguments or reduction of the tariff on woolens. Kespectfully yours, American Woolen Company, WALTER EIELDHOUSE, Manager. [James Lees & Sons, woolen and woolen yarns.] Bridgeport (opposite Norristown), Pa., November 21, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Dear Sir: We are very much opposed to any change in the tariff laws, as well as any agitation on the subject, as it interferes with busi- ness while these matters are discussed. No doubt there are certain matters that could be changed which would do no injury and do good; but when this question is opened what guarantee is there that some things may be done, and the new tariff would be no better than the old ? We do say, however, the u moiety ” act should not have been 296 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. repealed. As the law now stands, you are compelled to show the “ in- tention” on the part of an importer to defraud before you can convict. The court is even obliged to so charge the jury — that "the “intention” to defraud must be shown. It is a very difficult matter to prove the intention of a person, so conviction is frequently impossible. We are large importers ourselves, and we find a great deal of very unfair com- petition on the part of those who have no regard to honest business methods and the sanctity of an oath. Yours, respectfully, * JAMES LEES & SONS. [Standard Hosiery Mills, hosiery.'] Carthage, N. Y., November 24, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir: I have a moderate-sized hosiery mill at this place, em- ploying about 05 hands in mill and about as many more outside. Our manufacturing interests here are limited, and this help depend upon my mill being kept in operation ; the margin now being so small in manu- facturing that it is very little object to run. In answer to your circular of July 18 last, I would say that I trust no change will be made in the present wool and woolen tariff, and that no general revision of the tariff will be made, which so much disturbs the business interest of the country and proves so detrimental to our manufacturing interests, which are in a very depressed condition. Very respectfully, yours, M. P. MASON. [Amazon Hosiery Company.] Michigan City , Ind., November 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Sir : In addition to the special features of the pamphlet referred to in the inclosed circular we wish especially to protest against the constant changes made in our tariff laws. No manufacturer can with safety pro- ceed in the prosecution of his business unless he can rely upon the same tariff conditions. Jobbers will not place orders when changes in tariff rates are liable to affect values of merchandise. Our goods are made up six months in advance of the needs of the trade, and the risk to us is very great upon goods carried, in addition to the reluctance of buyers to place advance orders when changes are likely to occur. We protest against any change in present tariff laws upon either raw wool or manufactured goods, but if changes must be made we respectfully request that the present system of compound duties upon woolens be strictly maintained. Respectfully yours, Amazon Hosiery Company, Per G. W. POWELL, President. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 297 [Tlie same.] Michigan City, Ind ., November 25, 1885. Hou. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , J>. O. : Dear Sir: Replying to yours of the 23d, I wish very much to im- press your mind with the fact that it is the constant changes made by Congress in our tariff laws which makes the business of a manufacturer so unstable and so hazardous. I am not one who thinks it necessary to the prosperity of the industry I am engaged in that high rates of duties should be imposed; but what we need more than anything else is stability. If the present or any duties are to be levied on wool, then a corresponding duty should be put upon woolen fabrics, and in addi- tion to this such rate of duty as will enable manufacturers to pay the laboring interests employed the same rate of wages as are now paid. In our line skilled labor is paid 200 per cent, more in this country than across the water. It is useless to ask American manufacturers to pay present wages, higher rates for money, and yet be able to compete with foreigners. I do not consider myself an expert upon tariff matters, but these facts are so patent that no one can fail to see them. Above all, stop these everlasting changes. Keep one set of books open for more than one season. With very great respect, I am yours, &c., GEO. W. POWELL, President. [Conshohocken Worsted Mills, specific duties, woolen and worsted cloths and yarns. ] Conshohocken, Pa., August 1, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C.: Dear Sir : Your circular dated the 22d ultimo, was duly received, and has received m^ careful attention. In accordance with your request, I beg to present the following facts and suggestions in regard to changes in the existing tariff* laws. There can be no doubt that the present methods of entry and ap- praisement of imported merchandise admitof great evasiousof the laws. The chief reason of this is undoubtedly because the duties are levied ad valorem. The only remedy for the evil seems to be the adoption of specific duties, which, your circular states, has already been suggested. In common with all manufacturers,, we have suffered from the evasions of the tariff laws and the defective methods of entry and appraisement of imported goods, and wecoidially approve of the adoption of specific, duties as the best means of avoiding infraction of the law 7 and prevent- ing loss to those manufacturers who obey the law 7 and who are there- fore entitled to protection from the acts of those .who disregard it. In the levying of specific duties we are of the opinion that they should be so adjusted to the unit of weight or measure as to be equivalent at least to the present ad valorem duties. If this is not done, or if they are so adjusted as to effect any decrease in the protection to home manufact- ures afforded by the present tariff laws, the effect would undoubtedly 298 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. be disastrous to the workingmen, as it would necessitate a decrease in their wages. The margin of profit on manufactured goods in the pres- ent condition of the market, and the return for invested capital, is so small that any reduction caused by a lowering of the duties on imported merchandise would necessarily cause a corresponding red action in wages, a result which is, of course, to be avoided. In regard to our own business we have to present the following facts: The Consliokocken Worsted Mills is a stock company with a capital of $000,000. We operate three mills, employ 642 hands, to whom we pay monthly, on the average, about $15,000. We manufacture woolen and worsted yarns and woolen and worsted suitings. Our machinery is, generally, of the latest and most improved kinds, and is, to a great ex- tent, imported from England. In regard to the difference of cost of manufacture betweeu this coun- try and foreign nations, we would state that it is our opinion that goods of the style and finish that we manufacture could be produced in France or Germany for about one-half what they cost here, the differ- ence being due to the wide difference in the wages paid for labor and in the cost of the raw materials. For instance, cloth that could be placed on the market from our mills at $1.60 per yard could be placed on the market if manufactured in France or Germany at 80 cents per yard. This shows clearly the ne- cessity for maintaining the same degree of protection afforded by the present tariff laws, and also the advantage that would result to our manufacturers and the labor employed by admitting raw materials free of duty. In our opinion this change — the admission of raw material free of duty — is a reform in the tariff that is imperatively demanded by the condition of manufacturing interests, and would greatly aid in improving business generally. Our mills are so situated that supplies are readily obtained and products sent to mai'ket by rail. Steam-power is in use in all our mills. Most of our workmen are skilled laborers, and make good wages; some of the female operators make from $12 to $15 per week. By a recent State law machinery is exempt from taxation in this State. In conclusion, we would again respectfully call your attention to the two changes which we think should be made in the existing tariff, viz: 1. The adoption of specific duties in place of the present injurious and unjust ad valorem duties. 2. The admission of raw materials free of duties. We believe that these changes would more fully protect labor from ruinous reductions, would secure a better observance of the tariff laws and protect our manufacturers from losses caused by evasions of the laws, and would do much to increase the business prosperity of the country. Very respectfully, GEORGE BULLOCK, President and Treasurer of Consliokocken Worsted Mills. Revision of the tariff. 299 [The National Association of Wool Manufacturers.] THE WOOLEN TARIFF. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : The undersigned, in behalf of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, an organization representing the most important estab- lishments in every branch of the wool manufacture in the United States, in respectful response to your circular of July 18, 1885, asking for infor- mation bearing upon the question of the possible revision of the tariff, have the honor to submit the following statement, made in conformity with your invitation to give the fullest possible expression of our views on the general subject indicated, in such manner and lorm as we might deem best. This communication expresses, with the frankness which your invitation demands, our views as to the policy of reconsidering the existing tariff policy, while it is made with the earnest purpose of fur- nishing to you all the information available that will aid you, in case of a possible revision of the tariff, to recommend to Congress a schedule of duties on wool manufactures, consistent with the objects of revenue, just to consumers, and conducive to the interests of manufacturers and the general productive interests of the country. The general subject of your circular involves two questions, first, the expediency of any revision of the tariff at the present time and under existing circumstances; and, secondly, in case of a general revision of the tariff, the duties in the department which we represent required for the objects above indicated. OBJECTIONS TO A GENERAL TARIFF REVISION. The first of these questions, the expediency of any tariff revision at the present time, in its application to our particular industries, demands our first consideration. Upon this point we beg to repeat some expressions of opinion made to the last Congress, which met the general approval of the wool man- ufacturers of the country, and which are equally applicable to the ques- tion of a tariff revision by the next Congress. Resolutions o/1884. — In a statement presented to the last Congress we submitted among others the following resolutions: Resolved, That a discriminating and radical revision of the duties on manufactures of wool was made in the legislation of March 3, 1883, affecting a serious reduction of those duties ; that preliminary to this legislation and conducing to it, a searching in- vestigation was made by the Tariff Commission, the Committee on Finance, and the Committee on Ways and Means of the Forty-seventh Congress, and that all the light available was thus thrown upon the questions arising in the proper determination of those duties. * * * Resolved, That, so far as this committee is informed, the wool manufacturers of the United States are prepared to accept the present tariff on wool and woolens, notwith- standing its reductions, as a wise and proper adjustment of the duties until a practi- cal experience of the working of this tariff’ shall have demonstrated how it may be amended; and that, whatever objections they may originally have had to certain de- tails in this tariff, they desire its continuance for the present, because their business is adjusted to it, and is based upon the expectation of its continuance. Objections of 1884 revived . — In that statement we declared that any radical revision of the woolen tariff at that time (February, 1884), and 300 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. the conditions are in no respect changed by the lapse of less than two years, would be unjust. We showed that — The legislation of March 3, 1883, pledged the national faith that for a period con- siderable enough to test the working of that tariff, there should be no tariff agita- tion, and that the industries should have repose. That legislation was not the pledge of a party, but of the nation. It was a treaty with the national industries, and like a treaty with a foreign power should be respected, even by those who do not approve it. It was in this faith that the woolen industry, at least, accepted hurtful reduc- tions, submitted to obnoxious provisions, and favored, upon the whole, a tariff much less perfect than they would have desired — because they were ready to submit to temporary sacrifice for the certaint y of future peace. It must be remembered that the effects of any material modification of the wool and woolen duties are instantly felt in every woolen mill in the country, and changes in the system of manufacture are at once made to conform to them. In the faith of the comparative permanence, at least, of the late legislation we have contracted or enlarged our establishments and adapted our machinery, obtained our supplies of raw material, designed our goods, and made contracts for delivering them. In a word, our whole business arrangements are founded on the guarantees of the recent tariff legislation. * * * Instability in tariff legislation has been the bane of the woolen industry in former times. The comparative repose from disturbing legislation succeeding the tariff of 1867 was, with some individual exceptions, the brightest in our history. In no period has there been such an improvement in processes and fabrics, or so many new ones introduced, such an increase in wool production, or such a diminution in the prices of goods to con- sumers. Our confidence that these lessons would not be lost upon an intelligent Con- gress has led us to hope that we might be spared for a time the evils of a vacillating tariff ; and a permanent character has been given to our constructions, investments, and business arrangements, corresponding to what we felt was our well-grounded confidence in the stability of the late tariff legislation. Reductions upon woollens by tariff of 1883. — Although there is no in- timation in your circular of an intent on your part to recommend a re- duction of duties in such scheme as you may propose for the revision of the tariff, it cannot be denied that a very considerable reduction of duties is contemplated by those who favor a general tariff revision by the next Congress. The question, therefore, whether there was not as large a reduction in the legislation of 1883 as was required by the pop- ular demand and the interests of manufacturers and of labor, is per- tinent to that of the expediency of revision. In the communication above referred to we showed that by the tariff of March 3, 1883, all the reduction was made in the wool manufactures that was demanded by public opinion, or was consistent with the secur- ity of these manufactures in view of foreign competition, while in many cases the reduction was so large as to seriously disturb important branches of manufacture. We showed that— The reduction on flannels, blankets, knit goods, woolen and worsted yarns, manu- factures of worsted, &c., was as follows, namely : On goods valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound, from 32.78 to 34.78 per cent. On goods valued at above 30 cents per pound, and not exceeding 40 cents per pound, the reduction ranges from 25.93 to 29.41 per cent. On goods valued at above 40 cents, and not exceeding 60 cents per pound, the reduction ranges from 23.53 to 27.06 per cent. On goods valued at above 60 cents, and not exceeding 80 cents per pound, the reduction ranges from 23.53 to 26.08 per cent. On goods valued at above 80 cents per pound the reduction ranges from 13.97 per cent, on goods valued at 81 cents per pound to 7.31 per cent, on goods valued at $1.50 per pound. The reduction on woolen cloths, worsted shawls, &c., was as follows, namely: On goods valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound it ranges from 20.13 per cent, on goods valued at 70 cents per pound to 24.80 per cent, on goods valued at 30 cents per pound. On the finer and higher-priced goods valued at exceeding 80 cents per pound, it ranges from 7.31 per cent, on goods valued at $1.50 per pound to 13.97 per cent, on goods valued at 81 cents per pound. In carpets, a branch of manufacture having a production in 1880 of exceeding $31,000,000 in value and employing 20,000 operatives, the reduction was 24.82 per cent. These calculations are exclusive of the reduction made by the abolition of the duty on charges and commissions in the last tariff, which reduction is estimated as equal to an additional 2 \ per cent. REVISION OF TIIE TARIFF. 301 We showed, further, that the only branch of the wool manufacture in which no material reduction wns made by the last revision, the all- wool dress-goods manufacture, was provided with a totally inadequate duty in the tariff repealed, and is subjected to a weight of foreign com- peting importations exceeding that of any branch of American industry, making exemption from reduction au act not only of simple justice, but an indispensable condition of its existence. Reduction will increase revenue. — If revision of the tariff is urged now, as it was in 1884, for th^ object of reducing the duties, and with the single avowed end of diminishing the revenue and depleting a too redundant Treasury, we need offer no arguments of our own to show that this end cannot be obtained by reduction, and need only refer you to the grand argument by which your eminent predecessor, Mr. Kobert J. Walker, justified the reductions in his tariff of 1846 — namely, the lower the rates of duty the greater the revenue. But ir we are correctly informed of your estimate of the condition of the Treasury, and that its further depletion is not required by the public interests, the grounds for reduction of duties must be changed, and new arguments for this policy must be adduced, which, as they cannot be anticipated, cannot be answered. Revision will disturb the relations of business. — We do not enlarge upon the consequences of reduction which may result from a tariff re- vision, because we regard a radical change in the existing tariff system as a sufficient evil independently of possible reductions. The business of the country adjusts itself to any tariff recognizing in the main its productive interest which has the promise of permanency, aud with con- fidence and extent of enterprise in proportion to the assurance of its permanency. The prosperity of the individual industries does not de- pend upon their own tariff only, but scarcely less upon the general system, for each industry is related to the general tariff by the interests of its consumers and the cost of its supplies, by the activity of general busi- ness, the rapidity of exchanges, and commercial confidence, so depend- ent upon a fixed and wise economical system. The evil of tariff changes, therefore, does not consist only in the re- ductions to which particular industries are liable, but in the disturbance of the relations of the industries to each other, to which they have adapted themselves — as in woolens, to the duty on wool, on machinery, on dyestuffs, and countless supplies. These adjustments cannot be made in a day ; they are the work of time ; and the equilibrium which is the test of industrial and commercial prosperity cannot be* reached with fluctuation or the apprehension of fluctuation in legislation. What Lord Liverpool said of England sixty years ago applies with equal force to this country and now. Experience proves that property and trade will adapt themselves in time to mis- taken and defective laws ; but constant fluctuations in our legislation on such sub- jects can only be productive of disorder aud ruin. If every year there is to be change in our commercial laws, no man or body of men can know on what they are to rely. Under such a course of policy, neither the merchants of this country nor those of for- eign nations will be able to confide in us; »and our distresses, instead of being re- lieved, will be multiplied tenfold. Our competitors free from tariff agitation. — This lesson of her wise statesman England has never forgotten, while our own country has per- petually vacillated in her tariff laws. The advantages which our Euro- pean competitors enjoy in the stability of their tariffs are not the least of those against which American productive interests have to contend in the struggles to retain their markets. To protect, encourage, and 302 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. extend the manufactures of Great Britain has been the wise and uni- form policy of her statesmen for at least a century. When high pro- . tective duties had accomplished their work, and when her manufactur- ers determined that their interests lay in facilities for exportation, in cheap raw materials for their mills, and cheaper food for their workmen, free trade was established, and has continued for over forty years with absolute confidence on the part of her manufacturers that this policy would not be disturbed except at their demand. The interests of France and Germany demanded the policy of protection, aud the great indus- tries of these countries have literally dictated the tariff duties required for their respective interests, while they are exempt from all apprehen- sion of unfriendly changes. Remembering that, in the struggle for the command of our own market — the indispensable condition of prosperity, — the advantage of our foreigu competitors are our obstacles, let us contrast this security and stability with the fluctuations of our own tariff laws for the last forty years, the benign policy of 1842, and the disastrous legislation of 1846 and 1857, the encouragements of 1863- 7 64, the anxieties of 1866- 7 67, the apprehension of destructive legislation at each of the periods of tariff agitation of 1872, 1878, 1880, aud 1884, and we cannot but see that instability in our tariff* laws and tbe appre- hension of hostile legislation have at times greatly retarded our indus- trial and commercial prosperity. Evil of apprehension. — The apprehension of unfavorable legislation is scarcely less disastrous than the reality. To a country enjoying a tariff system which it has accepted, and to which it has adapted itself, tariff* agitation is an incalculable calamity. It paralyzes enterprise, fright- ens capital, depreciates values, and deranges labor. Although there is a difference of opinion as to the extent of the influence, it cannot be denied that tariff' agitation, among other causes, has materially con- tributed to the great and accelerating industrial and commercial de- pression of the last four years. The prosperity of 1882 was checked by the apprehension preceding the legislation of 1883 ; again by the threatened reductions of the Morrison tariff*, and, finally, by the un- certainty as to a future economical policy attending a Presidential cam- paign and a change of administration. The existing tariff, although its passage was hailed with joyful congratulation by the business com- munities as a final settlement of tariff agitation, has hitherto largely failed of its anticipated benefits through doubts as to its permanency. Let it haye the test which it is entitled to, and which it has not yet re- ceived — security from threatened repeal ! This we believe to be the sentiment of the productive interests and largely of the commercial in- terests of the country. The country cannot have prosperity until it settles down upon a fixed economical policy. No general revision of the tariff can be made under more favorable circumstances, with fuller information and expressions of opinion from all productive interests and both schools of economical doctrine, or with more unity on the part of the great political parties than in the revision of 1883. Another revis- ion involves the certain evil of continued tariff* agitation and business disturbance, and a postponement of the repose needed for recovering from an industrial depression unequaled since 1857. Let the glad as- surance be given that the powerful influence of the administration shall be wielded for the suppression of tariff* agitation — for the better en- forcement and not the repeal of the existing system — and the country, as we believe, will rebound from its depression as it did when the adoption of the Constitution pledged the nation and all future administrators of its laws to the defense of its industries. REVISION OE THE TARIFF. 303 The undersigned, therefore, conclude this branch of their response by remonstrating, with all the earnestness which they are capable of ex- pressing, against disturbing the business cf the country in the dawn of its revival by another general tariff revision. SYSTEM RECOMMENDED IN CASE OF TARIFF REVISION. The undersigned propose next to consider the second question in- volved in your inquiry, namely, in case of a revision of a tariff, the du- ties on manufactures of wool required, in our judgment, for the promo- tion of the domestic industry, the objects of revenue, and the general productive interests of the country. In considering this branch of the subject we avail ourselves of your invitation to give the fullest possible expression of our views in such manner as we may deem best, and omit details of the elements of cost of fabrication requested in certain of your interrogatories, because from the peculiarities of our manufacture, to be explained hereafter, impossible to be obtained, and, in our case, Unnecessary for your instruction, as the reasons for the duties recom- mended are otherwise fully given. Our refply to your leading inter- rogatory, namely, as to the advisability of substituting specific duties for the ad valorem duties, now applied to woolen manufactures, will be comprised in the following statement. Two 'peculiarities of the wool manufacture noticed.- — W e beg, in the first place, to call your attention to two essential peculiarities of the woolen manufacture, especially as pursued in this country, distinguishing it from all other domestic industries, which should be constantly borne in mind in determining the system of duties applicable to this manufacture. These are, first, the high duty on the raw material, from which the most impor - tant of our other textile industries are exempt ed and which constitutes a more important element in the cost of fabrication than in any other American industry; and, secondly, the immensely wide scope of the wool manufacture, the number of absolutely distinct branches, greater than in any other general industry, the infinity of fabrics, styles, and patterns in each branch, both old, and so perpetually newly introduced that the term novelties is exclusively applied to woolens ; the variation of prices according to style, fashion, and quality, and the absence of great staple and ruling fabrics, such as are found in the cotton industry- conditions which make a general system of duties imperative, and a tariff in detail impracticable — circumstances, moreover, which must convince you of the absolute impossibility of furnishing the elements of the cost of domestic production in this vast range of fabrics and of prices, as a basis for the imposition of duties. The complications exhibited in the above statement have caused the construction of a proper woolen tariff to be regarded by experts as the most difficult in the whole range of our revenue laws. And to the solu- tion of this difficulty the highest wisdom within our industry, and of statesmanship in Congress, has been directed. Happily, the twopeculiari- ties above stated have caused an evolution, or gradual attainment, through the experience of the last thirty years, of certain principles of tariff legislation applicable to the wool manufacture, which, through their universal recognition by all persons engaged in the wool manu- facture or in wool-growing, by revenue and tariff commissions, and by Congress, have become completely established, so far as anything can be by authority, as fixed and scientific principles of economical legisla- tion. These principles^ we conceive, must be constantly recognized in 304 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. any revision of the tariff contemplating the future existence, not to say prosperity, of the wool manufacture in this country. These observations, as well as the earlier portions of this response, will already have apprised you that the undersigned contemplate in their recommendations a preservation of the essential structure of the existing woolen tariff, with such modifications only as will carry out more fully the recognized principles upon which it is based, and the correction of errors and ambiguities of language inseparable from all legislation. The undersigned accordingly recommend, in case of any tariff revis- ion, the adoption of the accompanying schedule of duties on woolens (Appendix A), based upon the existing duties on wool, and proceed to state the grounds upon which such schedule is recommended, and the changes from the present schedule suggested are justified — uot hesi- tating to repeat much that is familiar to those who have studied the subject ; because the intimation of a revision by new investigators de mands, as we conceive, the fullest possible reaffirmation of the prin- ciples of the policy which we approve. Foreign manufacturers ’ advantages from free wool . — It is necessary for us to enlarge somewhat upon a peculiarity of our manufacture before alluded to: namely, its subjection, upon grounds of public policy, to a high duty on the raw material. The American manufacturer is engaged in a perpetual struggle with the manufacturers of Europe for the posses- sion of the markets of this country. As before said, the advantages of our competitors are our obstacles. In this strife the European manu- facturer possesses the advantage, which would be overwhelming if not counteracted by special legislation, of having the raw material of iiis manufacture from free duty — no duties on wool existing in Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and very slight duties, if any, in other manufacturing nations. Our European competitors are exempt from the direct enhancement, by a duty, of the cost of wool, thus require ing less capital to supply their mills, and no cost of interest on the duty required in carrying their stocks of wool and goods. They ars free from the apprehension of changes in the value of wool, such a- have taken place in this country in consequence of no less than seven- teen changes in the tariff on wools within the memory of living manu- facturers. They are exempt from the duties on wool-substitutes, so usefully employed to mix with wool in the manufacture of the cheaper and heavier cloths — duties which with us are absolutely prohibitory. They are able, from the lower cost of their raw material, to relieve themselves from overproduction by consigning th< ir surplus stocks at comparatively slight sacrifice to foreign markets, to which their cheap- ness lias already introduced them. They are not compelled, as we are, to discriminate in their choice of wool to avoid the effect of the duty, aud are able to select their wools in any condition, whether unwashed, washed, or scoured, with reference only to their desirable qualities. Through freedom of importation they have near markets, as at London, Havre, Antwerp, and Berlin, offering vast assortments and a steady supply of all kinds of wool; advantages especially favorable to the small manufacturer. This exemption Irom all restrictions in the selec- tion of raw material, together with the facilities for supply and the cer- taiuty that values will not be disturbed by legislation, is believed to be the chief cause of a characteristic of the European woolen industry, namely, that the manufacturer abroad obtains success by adhering with steady attention to the special fabrics he has undertaken to make, aud in which he has acquired excellence ; while diversification of manufact- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 305 ures, so necessary to prevent overproduction, is encouraged by tbe equal availability of all varieties and conditions of raw material. Tbe effect of this policy upon the agricultural interests and tbe labor of tbe countries which adopt it we are not at present called upon to consider. Domestic manufacturer s 7 disadvantages .— On tbe other band, tbe pro- tection to wool adopted in this country, upon grounds of public policy, involves disadvantages to the domestic manufacture which would be insuperable if not neutralized by tbe compensation to be hereafter re- ferred to. In making a comparison with European manufacturers, it is not sufficient to consider the rates of duty only, but the expenses at- tending the importation of wool from the great wool markets of the world, from which the foreign manufacturer is exempt, and which con- stitute an additional protection to the wool-grower. In order that the existing duties of wool may be thoroughly understood, we append (Appendix B) a table, prepared in 1884 by wool experts in whom we have entire confidence, exhibiting the prices at which wools of all classes could then be bought in some of the world’s markets — and the conditions are not now materially changed — the existing duty upon them, the cost of importation (including commissions) from the port of shipment to Boston, the total cost at Boston, the ’percentage of duty upon their cost, and the percentage of duty and cost of importation upon their cost. Selecting Class I, clothing wools, as an illustration, an examination of this table will show that on Class 1, unwashed wool, the duty ranges lrom 34.48 per cent, to 100 per cent, on the cost, and that the duty and cost of importation range from 48.45 per cent, to 117.80 per cent, on the cost. This high duty is not the only difficulty with which our manufacturers requiring foreign wools have to contend. It is held that complete pro- tection to the most important branch of our wool-growing industry, the Merino sheep husbandry, requires that washed wools in Class I should be subject to double the duty of unwashed wool, and the duty on scoured wool should be three times the amount upon the unwashed wools — an arrangement which compels the importations of Class I wools to be in the greasy state, necessitating the transportation charges on from two and a quarter to three pounds of grease and dirt in the wool required for a pound of cloth. The effect of the compulsion to buy greasy wool and pay a heavy specific duty on its impurities is that the American manufacturer is thereby obliged to give undue preference to light condition over fineness and the other valuable qualities of wools offering in foreign markets. Our manufacturers, moreover, are obliged by this restriction to concentrate their competition in foreign markets upon the always small proportion of the lightest unwashed wools; while our foreign competitors, having to pay duty neither upon wool nor on grease and dirt, can buy the heavy wools in the market to much better advantage. To these considerations it should be added that the high specific duty on clothing wools, a duty irrespective of the cost, practically excludes the cheap and abundant clothing wools of South America, and by freeing them from our competition for their purchase makes them much cheaper than they would otherwise be to the manufacturers of France, Belgium, and Germany, who work them up into cloths and stuffs by the cheapest labor in Europe. Another matter, though comparatively of less importance, should not be omitted. The classification of wools under each class, indispensable as it is for the objects aimed at in the wool tariff, is subject to the diffi- S. Ex. 72- 20 306 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. culty of excluding the doubtful classes of wool, or those on the uncer- tain line of division between two classes, however desirable and valua- ble they may be — the importer being unwilling to incur the risk of such wools being subjected to the duty of the higher class. This is another considerable restriction in our selection of imported wools, and has been a source of serious loss and inconvenience to our importing manufact- urers. Necessity for counteracting disadvantages . — It will be seen from the above that we are subjected, in consequence of wool duties deemed nec- essary for the protection of the domestic wool industry, not only to an enhancement of the cost of our raw material, but to stringent limitations in choosing the best sources of supply for our various wants — disad- vantages from which our foreign competitors are wholly exempt, and to which no other branch of domestic industry is subjected to any material extent. We dwell upon these restrictions and limitations, not with the object of urging their removal, for we have already expressed our assent to the system by which they are retained, but because a frank state- ment of these difficulties is required to show the indispensable necessity of neutralizing them, if the woolen industry is to be preserved in this country together with the protection to wool, which public policy seems to require and the supremacy of agricultural constituencies makes im- perative. These conditions require to be fully stated, because they are not generally appreciated. It needs to be better known that the admit- tedly high duties, and on a cursory view, unduly high duties on woolens, are made necessary by the assumed necessity of protecting the domestic wool-growers, and providing for them a profitable home market ; and that the manufacturers, exempted from the wool duties, would be am- ply content with the much lower range of duties provided for other branches of the textile industry. Necessity for importations of wool. — It may be said that a remedy for these difficulties is to be found in the exclusive use of the domestic wools, which will be abundantly supplied under due protection. To this we reply, that neither our own country nor any other in the world does or can produce to advantage wools of all kinds and grades. Expe rience under high protection of wool in this country for over thirty years has demonstrated that our domestic wool growers find it to their ad- vantage to produce only the staple wools required for the ordinary range of woolen fabrics ; and as these fabrics will al ways be in demand, they build up their flocks — a work of time — for the production only of the fleeces which will be profitable fora long series of years. This system, although providing admirable raw material for common goods, is incom- patible with the variety required for the diversified and highly advanced manufacture which should be our aim. The American manufacturer, to compete with the fabrics of other nations in the endless variety de- manded by our times, must have the power of selecting a portion of his raw material from all the world’s sources of supply. The sudden and exceptional demand for more or new raw material must be supplied by importations. By none was this necessity more fully recognized than by the eminent wool-growers who assisted in 1866-’67 in framing the substructure of the present wool and woolen tariff ; and they united with the manufacturers in recommending to Congress a policy which recon- ciled restriction with freedom, by giving to both growers and manufact- urers what was regarded as adequate protection, and to the manufact- urer the utmost freedom to import raw materials consistent with pro- tection to the grower. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 307 PRINCIPLES OF WOOLEN TARIFF. We will now proceed to consider in detail the principles* recognized in the legislation respecting wools and woolens for the last thirty years, which governed the tariff of 1867, are substantially observed in the ex- isting tariff, and are strictly carried out in the accompanying schedule, whose adoption is recommended in case of tariff revision. General Garfield’s statement. — The most compact statement of these principles is that made by General Garfield, in a report to Congress, in behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means, in 1880, who says: On the whole, no part of onr tariff system has been more amply vindicated by ex- perience than that which relates to wool and woolens. * * * The basis of that leg- islation was this: That upon the several grades of imported wool a duty should be imposed sufficient to promote the growth of sheep husbandry in the United States. A specific duty was then imposed on woolen goods as near as possible equal to the wool which entered into theii manufacture. This was not protection, but simply an equivalent duty which placed the woolen manufacture on a free-trade level. To this specific duty was then added a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem, ou woolen goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against foreign competition. A more detailed statement of principles. — A fuller statement, however, is required for those who may reinvestigate the grounds of that legis- lation, especially as such statement will involve an answer to your main interrogatory, whether a system of specific duties, simply, may not be advantageously substituted for the compound system now existing. The fun cement al principle of the wool tariff, which by over thirty years’ legislation has been established almost as an economic law, is this: The wool manufacturer is to he placed in the same position as if he had his wool aiyd other rate material free of duty , and then to receive sub- stantially the same measure of protection accorded to other industries. The method by which this problem is solved is by the imposition upon woolen cloths and other manufactures of wool of such specific duties as will be sufficient to reimburse the manufacturer for the amount of duty and other material entering into such manufactures, and the amount paid on account of s'uch duty. The protection to the manufact- urer is provided by an ad valorem duty, being, with slight excep- tions, fixed in the old and existing tariff as 35 per cent. — these two classes of duty, the specific and ad valorem, constituting that system of compound duties which is held to be the only one that can be effectually defensive of the woolen manufacture or is consistent with protection to wool. Elements of specific duty. — To determine the specific duty to be placed upon woolen manufactures to reimburse the duty on raw material, it is necessary to ascertain, (1) the number of pounds of wool required to make a pound of finished goods ; (2) the amount of duty paid ou other material; (3) the amount paid on account of the duty. As to the first point, the concurrent estimates of manufacturers, as early as 1861, were that an average of 4 pounds of foreign unwashed wool are required to produce one pound of finished woolen goods. Later testimony, to be found in Appendix C, will show that this estimate of 4 pounds, instead of being too high is not high enough to cover a large class of goods made of certain classes of foreign wools. As to the second point, the duties on drugs, dyestuffs, and other imported material, are estimated, from authentic data, at an average of 2£ cents to the pound of cloth. As to the third point — the charges and expenses in consequence of the duty — these are recognized to consist of interest for six months on the 308 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. duty on the raw material, from the time of its purchase until the sale of the finished goods, and of charges for commissions on sales and guar- antees, which commissions are increased in amount in proportion to the amount of the duty. The average rate of these commissions is esti- mated at 6J per cent. The two items — of interest on the duty of the raw materials, for six months, at 3J per cent., and commissions on sales and guarantees, 6J per cent., amount to 10 per cent. — which should be added to the direct duty to fully reimburse the manufacturer. This would be slightly varied according to the rates of interest varying from time to time. A longer period than six months from the purchase of his raw materials is now required by the manufacturer to secure returns. Evolution of system of compound duties . — A brief sketch of the legisla- tion on woolens will show how completely the principle of placing the manufacturer in the same position as if his raw material were free of duty has been incorporated in our tariff system. The tariff of 1846, and its complement, the tariff of 1857, placing an equal ad valorem duty on wool and woolens, and therefore giving no compensatory duty to the manufacturer, proved ruinous to our woolen industry, and finally destructive to our wool production. In the first revision of those tariffs by friends of American industry, namely, the framers of the tariff of 1861, this evil was corrected. In the last named tariff the duty on the principal competing wool was fixed at 3 cents per pound. The framers of the tariff, recognizing that four pounds of im- ported wool are required to make a pound of finished cloth, Und multi- plying the wool duty, 3 cents, by 4, placed upon woolen cloth and other leading classes of woolens a specific duty of 12 cents, with an addi tional ad valorem duty. In 1864 the duties on wool \tere raised to 6 cents per pound; and this duty being multiplied by 4, made the spe- cific duty of 24 cents, which was given to woolens, besides an ad valo rem duty. The principle of reimbursement by the specific duty and protection by the ad valorem, though applied to the principal classes of woolen goods, however, was not completely carried out through the whole of these tariffs. In 1866 a still further increase of the duty on wool was required l>y the agriculturists. There was in that year a consultation, or a series of conferences between the two national associations of wool growers and wool manufacturers, the result of which was, that the essential features of the tariff of 1867 were submitted to the Revenue Commis- sion of 1866, were by that Commission recommended to Congress, and became a law in 1867. in the preparation of that tariff all the intellect and knowledge at the command of the national wool industry was brought into requisition. The duty on the principal competing wools was increased to 10 cents and 11 per cent, ad valorem, an equivalent of 11J cents per pound. But the controlling idea in the preparation of that tariff was the careful adjustment of a compound duty for woolens, so that the specific part of the duty should be as strictly as possible compensatory of the duty on the wool and other raw material, and the ad valorem part of the duty should give protection, and the same rate of protection to all manufactures of wool. In other words, the same principle, partially applied in the tariffs of 1861 and 1864, was applied to all possible cases. Elements of duty on woolen cloths . — The theory of the tariff of 1867 is • illustrated by its application to the principal product of the woolen man- ufacture, “ woolen cloth, woolen shawls, &c., w under the tariff of 1867. REVISION or THE TARIFF. 309 The duty on the principal competing wool entering into the manufact- ure of cloth was 11J cents per pound. Cents. The duty on 4 pounds of wool, at 11£ cents, was 46. 00 Duty on drugs, dye-stuffs, &c., per pound of cloth 2. 50 Total duty on raw material 48. 50 Charges for carrying duty at 10 per cent, on same 4. 85 Amount of reimbursing or specific duty required 53. 35 For convenience and easy calculation, Congress deemed it expedient to strike off the 3.35 cents, and to fix the specific duty on cloths and the principal classes of woolen goods in the tariff of 1867 at the round number of 50 cents per pound. The ad valorem duty on cloths and other woolen goods, with slight exceptions, was fixed at 35 per cent. The principal point of congratulation upon the completion of their work by the framers of the tariff of 1867 was that here was a system which would remain permanent, no matter what changes might be de- manded in the course of legislation, in the duties on wool, or the de- gree of protection to be afforded to the manufacturer. If the duties on wool were to be changed, the specific duty on goods could be lowered accordingly. If the protection to the manufacturer were to be dimin- ished or increased, it would be only necessary to raise or lower the general rate of the ad valorem duty. Symmetry disturbed in 1883. — It is, as we conceive, to be regretted — not so much upon practical grounds as from the desirableness that any principle of legislation once adopted as just and wise should be undisturbed — that in the tariff of 1883 the principles governing the proper application of specific and ad valorem duties to woolen manu- facturers were not strictly adhered to. By the legislation of 1883, the duty on the principal competing wool was placed at 10 cents per pound, the ad valorem provision for wool in the old law being omitted. The reduction still left to the wool grower a larger average protection than the manufacturer received, and in our view, upon the principles above stated, the reduction would not seem to have justified a correspond- ing reduction in the manufacturers 7 protective or ad valorem duty. The strict application of these principles, it is obvious, required only a change in the specific. duty on woolens equivalent to the reduced duty on wool. A majority of the Tariff Commission, whose recommendations were largely followed by Congress, were, as we are informed, of the opinion that a reduction equal to that on wool ought to be made both in the manufacturers 7 ad valorem and specific duty. The Commission and Congress, however, for reasons which do not appear, concluded upon the whole to leave the ad valorem duty at its old rate of 35 per cent., and to apply the whole reduction in woolens proper, which would result from lowering both duties, to the manufacturers 7 specific duties. The specific duties in the present law were reduced from 50 cents to 35 cents, while to place the manufacture, according to the theory of the system agreed upon by the conferences of 1866, the specific duty should have been left at 46.75 cents. This will appear by the following state- ment: Cents. Duty on 4 pounds of wool at a duty of 10 cents 40. 00 Duty on drugs and dye-stuffs, &c 2. 50 Total duty on raw material 42. 50 Charges on carrying duties at 10 per cent 4. 25 Amount of reimbursing duties required 46.75 Amount reduced for convenience of calculation 45. 00 310 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. This statement is made not with the purpose of urging a change in the present arrangement, for we have expressed our assent to it as long as the jjresent duties on wool continue and no general revision of the tariff is attempted. We make the statement to show, first, how, in case of a general revision, the symmetry of the woolen tariff may be restored, and, secondly, to show how largely the woolen manufacturers have al- ready suffered from a reduction of the equitable duty to which they are entitled. The assumed protection to the wool manufacture of 35 per cent, by the, ad valorem duty is actually reduced to the full extent of the deficiency of the specific duty, 11.75 cents, making it considerably less than 30 per cent. The protection is still further reduced by the underval- uations prevailing to such an extent in the importation of woolen goods, and again fully 2J per cent, by the removal of the duties upon charges and commissions, a reduction to which wool was not exposed, as in the old tariff such charges did not enter into the calculation of the wool duties, so that the net protection actually accruing to the wool manu- facture cannot be estimated at above 25 per cent. Can any one maintain that this is more than enough to equalize the cost of our production with that of our foreign competitors, a cost, as determined by average earnings in Massachusetts, shown by the most recent investigations to be in the ratio of 1.62 iu this country to 1 in England, having the best paid labor in Europe?* Th6 slightness of this net protection is more apparent when it is remembered that our wool manufacture has to contend with the oldest and most widely dif- fused industries of all Europe and with the very cheapest labor on the continent, and that it is subjected to caprices of fashion requiring fre- quent changes of machinery and losses on unfashionable stocks of goods, while its requirements for enterprise, skill, and taste are scarcely equaled in any branch of manufacture pursued in this country. THE SPECIFIC AND COMPOUND SYSTEMS OF DUTIES COMPARED. Although our general opinion as to the preservation of the existing system of compound duties applied to the woolen manufacture may be already inferred, your circular invites us to give our u views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff and making the duty specific so far as applicable to imported articles in which we are interested, with as full information upon the subject as we may be pleased to submit.” We will, therefore, consider the subject in more detail, first stating our ob- jections to the adoption of a purely specific system, and then adding some further reasons for the preservation of the existing system. (1) We object to any change as radical as that suggested would be, because we believe it dangerous to disturb a system which has been the gradual growth through a long series of years from the necessities and the collective wisdom of the industries concerned, which has never been objected to by those most interested in its operation, and to which, in the confidence of its permanency, their business is adjusted. (2) We regard the application of purely specific duties to woolen manufactures as impracticable on account of the variety of fabrics be- fore adverted to, and the impossibility of fixing the specific duties be forehand upon the thousands of novelties which are produced every year and season in foreign looms. There are, besides, so many different * The general average weekly wages of the employes in twenty-four industries in Massachusetts is 62+ per cent, higher than the general average weekly wages of the employes iu the same industries iu Great Britain . — Report of Bureau of Statistics of Labor in 1885. REVISION OE THE TARIFF. 311 branches in the woolen industry as distinct from each other as the manufacture of wool is from that of cotton and silk, that there is no man or body of men sufficiently expert in all branches and competent to indicate the various duties required on all the varieties of woolens, while it would be difficult to obtain the desirable information from those specially informed, in view of their general unwillingness to change the present system. The difficulty of adopting and applying purely spe- cific duties to woolen manufactures is shown by the fact that of the many custom-house experts examined by the Tariff Commission and urging a simplification of the tariff, no one dared to recommend the application of purely specific duties to woolens 5 while the only objec- tions made by such experts to the existing system were to the specific part of the compound duty. (3) The rates of purely specific duties must be determined by the cost of articles at the time when they are imposed. The fluctuations of value in woolen manufactures are so great, and there are such facilities for changing the cost of an article of any given denomination, that what may be an equitable and sufficient duty when it is imposed may be in- equitable and insufficient at a future period. (4) Specific duties would fail to provide an effectual remedy for un- dervaluations of imported goods. The values of woolens of the same denomination vary from less than a dollar to several dollars per yard. Specific duties approaching to justice — for only the ad valorem duty is absolutely just, though not always expedient — must be adapted to dif- ferent values of woolens. This can only be done by a series of mini- mum duties, which the specific system necessarily implies ; and it is well known that the most flagrant frauds in valuation arise from the efforts of importers to place their goods in the classes subject to the lowest specific duty in the minimum clauses of the tariff. (5) It is intimated that the object of a change to specific duties is to “simplify the tariff.” An object which is desirable or uot accordingly as it assists or impairs the purposes of a tariff. The phrase is a popu- lar one of quite uncertain meaning. If the simplicity of a tariff means its intelligibleness, the definiteness of its principles, and the clearness of its terms, nothing can be more simple than the present system. If it means brevity, what can be more compact than the existing woolen schedule, covering the duties applicable to the most diverse of all do- mestic industries in a little more than a single page of the statute-book ? If it means facility of execution, we freely admit that either a pure speci- fic or ad valorem system would be more convenient to custom-house officials, and would be a slight saving of time and labor in weighing, measuring, and calculating; a consideration so trivial — affecting the labor of probably less than fifty men — in comparison with the interests of a great national industry as to be unworthy of any regard. The tes- timony of New York custom-house experts before the Tariff Commission established beyond question that there is no practical difficulty, except a slight increase of labor, in the execution of our system of compound duties. The testimony of an appraiser at Boston of high character and great experience is so distinct upon this point that we give it in full. It is contained in a letter addressed to a member of this association, as follows : Custom-House, Boston Appraiser’s Office, February 2, 1875. Henry F. Coe, Esq., Treasurer: I have yours of yesterday, inquiring if we have found any difficulty at this office in working under the present tariff, which levies a compound duty on the manufact- ures of woolens. In answer I can say that in my long experience in this office, 312 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. since 1861, we have never found any difficulty in working under the laws, either in prompt celerity in the examination and reports on our importation, or any confusion in the rates of duty. Very truly, your obedient servant, R. H. DARRAH, Appraiser. In addition to the reasons already given for retaining the present sys- tem we observe — (6) It is of the highest importance for the interests both of wool pro- duction and the wool manufacture that the distinction between the compensatory duty and the protective duty to the manufacturer should be always clearly defined and preserved. Under systems of purely specific or purely ad valorem duties upon wool manufactures, although it might be originally intended to include the compensatory duty on the raw material in the rates provided, the distinction might in time be lost sight of, and in the hasty legislation to which the tariff is subjected on the floor of Congress, with the liability to amendments, there might be an arbitrary reduction in the duties on woolens, on the inconsider- ate view that the whole of the duty is a protection to the manufacturer. (7) The compound duty qualifies and neutralizes the defects of the two other single systems. The ad valorem part, on the one hand, re- lieves the inequalities of the pure specific system, which makes the duty too low on goods of high value, and too high on goods of low value, and the abruptness of transition in the minimum clauses from low to high duties on goods but slightly differing in value. The specific part, on the other hand, partially corrects the undervaluations prevailing under a pure ad valorem system, and in cases of a general decline of prices abroad, when the pure ad valorem duties cease to be protective, pre- vents the duty from falling so low as to admit the unobstructed flow of European surpluses into this country. In other words, the compound duty makes a more effectual barrier against the foreign goods, which would break down our markets, than either the specific or ad valorem system would be alone. (8) The compound duty, by the preponderating operation of the spe- cific part of the duty at one time, and of the ad valorem part at an- other time, equally protects the same manufacturer at different seasons of the year. The greater part of our cloth mills in summer make heavy goods for wear in the next winter, and light-weight goods in winter for the next summer’s wear. The heavy goods weighing 16 to 24 ounces per square yard derive their chief protection from specific or pound duty on competing foreign cloths. The light-weight goods for summer wear, weighing but a few ounces to the square yard, are chiefly pro- tected by the ad valorem part of the compound duty. Thus both sys- tems of duties secured by the compound system are required at differ- ent seasons for the defense of the manufacturer in the same mill. (9) Except a slight increase of labor to custom-house officials, there is absolutely no argument for the abolition of compound duties in the woolen schedule, except merely theoretical opinions, or opinions formed without experience. In favor of the continuanceof the present system we have the fact that it has stood for over thirty years without objec- tion, except from officials desiring an easier system of computing duties, and from those opposed to all protective duties. The present system is recommended by the highest legislative authorities, by the indorse- ment of the Revenue Commission of 1866, by the final judgment, after full discussion, of the Tariff Commission of 1882, by the adoption of the system, directly from our own, by the Dominion of Canada in a recent revision of its tariff, and finally by the practical manufacturers them- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 313 selves, who ought to be the best judges of their own interests, if those interests are to have any weight in legislation. THE WOOLEN TARIFF CLAUSES SEPARATELY CONSIDERED. Proceeding with our explanation of the principles substantially gov- erning the provisions of the existing woolen tariff, the main structure of which we approve, it is proper that we should consider these provis- ions consecutively and separately, suggesting the changes which, in our opinion, should be made to bring the provisions more strictly in conformity with the principles recognized by the original framers of the system as correct. The cloth clause . — The first and most important clause of the woolen schedule, paragraph 362,* relates to “ woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of every description” not specially enumerated in the act. The elements of the specific duty applied in this paragraph have already been stated. This clause covers the most important de- partment of the woolen manufacture, the fabrication of “cloths” fur- nishing at least nine-tenths of the clothing of our male population and being the most widely diffused of all our textile industries. Partly on account of the national importance of this manufacture, and its necessity to the wool-grower as furnishing the principal market for his wools, the specific duty was made to apply to all kinds of cloth, irrespective of their cost, the quantity of wool which they contained, or the methods of their fabrication. The lower duties in proportion to ther foreign cost, as provided in other portions of the schedule, were also expressly ex- cluded from cloths, for the purpose of shutting out the foreign cheap, low goods composed of wool substitutes, such as shoddy, waste, &c., so extensively manufactured in England for foreign export. This exclu- sion of the lower duties was, besides, a measure of simple justice, as the duties imposed by our tariff on wool substitutes is prohibitory. The foreign shoddy goods of very considerable weight and of but a shilling or two in value are those upon which the duty is declared to be over 100 per cent. The duty was intended to be prohibitory of such goods, for their exclusion by the high pound duty was held to be a public benefit. The high specific duty has operated also to encourage the production of a higher but comparatively low class of domestic goods, such as enter into the consumption of the masses. More than nine-tenths of the cloths worked up in our vast ready -made clothing establishments are of this class. They are made of our sound American wool, have admirable wearing qualities, and, considering their more serviceable character, are practically as cheap as foreign cloths are to their buyers abroad. The prosperity, such as it has been, of the great bulk of our common woolen mills is attributed by all well-informed men to the effect of the specific duty in excluding the heavier competing foreign cloths, while the increased domestic production, resulting from the command of our home market, has caused the cheapening process, through improved methods of manufacture and competition, to be most conspicuous in the lower and medium goods of most general consumption. Worsted cloths . — We cannot doubt that it was the intention of the framers of this clause to include all cloths, irrespective of the method of their fabrication, composed in whole or in part of wool. We conceive that the emphatic and distinctive word in this clause is not woolen , but * The numbering of the paragraphs is from Heyl’s Digest of 1884. 314 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cloth , as distinguished from all textures subsequently enumerated in the schedule. We conceive that the term cloths is used in its popular and commercial sense, namely, a fabric of icool, finished and close ; as distin- guished from a flannel of comparative thickness ; as distinguished from a woolen stuff, adapted for the garments ordinarily made up by the tailor or clothier. Therefore we conceive that, by the strict terms and manifest intent of this clause, the class of cloths commonly known as worsted coat- ings are included therein. The latter-named cloths are erroneously, as we think, classified by the appraisers of our custom-houses not as cloths, but as manufactures of worsted, whereby they are subjected to lower rates than the law framers contemplated.* Although it is hoped that this erroneous classification may be corrected by your instructions, we have inserted in the schedule which we recommend in case of a general re- vision, the word u worsted,” after “ woolen,” so that that provision shall apply equally to worsted and woolen cloths. In the present law the specific duty in this clause is placed at 35 cents. We have already shown that this sum is not sufficient, according to the admitted principles of the law, to compensate for the duties on the raw material, and in the schedule recommended in case of revision, have placed the specific duty in this clause at the round sum of 45 cents, which nearly covers all the elements of a proper specific duty. The ad valorem duty. — The ad valorem duty in this clause, applicable to the great bulk of goods produced, is placed at 35 per cent., a rate less than the general rate imposed in the other textile schedules. Un- der the tariff of 1867 this rate was imposed upon all goods coming under this clause, without respect to their cost. The framers of the tariff of 1883 deemed it proper, in order to preserve u the scale of jus- tice,” to place a higher ad valorem duty on the more costly goods re quiring more labor in their production, and imposed upon goods val- ued at above 80 cents per pound an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent. — experience having shown that it was for the public interest that the proportion of the production of the finer goods should be increased by higher protective duties. The propriety of a higher duty for the finer and more highly finished goods was recognized in a “ conference” of the representatives of the National Associations of Wool Growers and Wool Manufacturers at Washington, February 23, 1878, and the prin- ciple is applied in the schedule of flax, cotton, and silk. The miscellaneous woolen clause. — The next clause, paragraph 363, re- lates to the next important group of woolen manufactures. We have caused this clause to be presented below in such a manner that the changes made in 1883 from the old law may be seen at a glance ; and call attention to the points, that the use of common type signifies that the language is the same in the former as in the new law ; of italics, that the language is that of the new law alone ; of type inclosed in brackets, that the language is that of the former law alone, and there- fore not to be read as part of the new law. 363. Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit-goods, and. all goods made on knitting- frames, balmorals, woolen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of every de- scription, composed wholly or in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other [like] animals (except such as are composed in part of wool), not specialljf enu- merated or [otherwise] provided for in this act , valued at not exceeding thirty [forty] cents per pound, ten [twenty] cents per pound; valued at above thirty cents per pound, and not exceeding forty cents per pound, twelve cents per pound ; valued at above forty cents per pound, and not exceeding sixty cents per pound, eighteen [thirty] cents per * For fuller views upon this poiut we refer to “ an argument for the classification of worsted cloths, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury ” by the secretary of this association. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 315 pound; valued at above sixty cents per pound, and not exceeding eighty cents per pound, [forty] twenty-four cents per pound ; and in addition thereto , upon all the above named articles , thirty-five per centum advalorem ; valued at above eighty cents per pound, thirty five [fifty] cents per pound, and in addition thereto [upon all the above- named articles, thirty-five] forty per centum ad valorem. In the tariff of 1867, where the principles determining the proper specific duty were carried out as strictly as was practicable, the specific duties applicable to the above-named articles were determined in the same manner as the specific duty on cloths. Upon grounds of public policy before stated, it was deemed proper to assume that all cloths were wholly composed of wool paying the highest duty. It was not deemed necessary to make this assumption in the articles mentioned in this clause, as shoddy, mungo, and waste enter but slightly into their fabrication, and within the valuations provided, not at all. Therefore, for these articles there was provided a system of minimums, or a series of the lowest valuations to which certain specific duties could be applied to given ranges of goods, for the purpose of adjusting the specific duties, as nearly as practicable, to the proportions of wool in the articles enumer- ated, and the wool duties on the same, in order that the specific duties on the goods might be as nearly as possible compensatory for the duties on the raw material. The highest minimum was placed at 80 cents per pound. It was cor- rectly held that the goods, such as flannels, blankets, knit-goods, &c., costing above this value must be composed of clothing- wool, paying then a specific duty of 11J cents per pound, and requiring four pounds of wool to the pound of finished goods. The reimbursing specific duty on these goods was therefore correctly fixed at 50 cents, this being the substitute accepted for convenience of calculation, for 53.35 cents, which would have been the exact amount of the reimbursing duty required. As the valuation of the goods diminished it was supposed that the proportions of cotton mixed with the wool, or of wool paying the high- est duty increased, and the specific duties were proportionately di- minished. Notwithstanding the sound objections made to the system of mini- mums, that they are unequal in their operation between the different points of valuation, and that they afford a temptation to the importer to invoice his goods at a lower price than those of the class to which they properly belong, it was held that this system was the only one which could be devised to meet the object sought for, the adjusting of the du- ties on woolen manufactures approximately to the duties paid on the raw material. To meet the objections above made to the minimum sys- tem it was held necessary to place the valuations sufficiently high to give the limitation intended, and it was also held that it was necessary that the specific duties applicable to each valuation should be sufficient- ly high to neutralize the disadvantages to which certain manufactures included in this clause are subjected — the knit-goods manufacture, for instance, which requires fuller compensation by specific duties, as the waste in hosiery goods, from cutting, trimming, and fitting, is greater than in other woolen fabrics, while there is a large consumption of trim- mings of silk, &c., on which the highest duties are paid. It will be seen by a comparison of the figures in italics with those in brackets in the above presentation of paragraph 363 that by the legisla- tion of 1883 the symmetry of the original clause was disturbed by arbi- trary and, as we venture to think, unwarranted reductions, in which the objects of the framers of this tariff were nearly lost sight of. These reductions, under an erroneous classification for duty, were 316 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. especially injurious to our worsted-clotli manufacture in the year follow- ing the tariff of 1883 — there having been in that year an increased im- portation of worsted coatings from the consular district of Bradford to the extent of 147.8 per cent. Of this boon to British trade the u Brad- ford Observer” declares that “ this increase of exports is owing princi- pally to the reductions of tariff in the United States, which took place on the first of July, 1883;” a fact which shows how vitally dangerous an apparently slight reduction of duty may be to industries just pre- serving their equilibrium against the pressure of foreign competition. The original arrangement of the specific duties in this clause, founded on the old duties on wool, having been recognized as correct, all the reductions of specific duties in this clause, to preserve the old sym- metry, should have been exactly proportioned to the reduced duty on wool ; that is if, as we have shown, the reduced duty on wool required on goods of the highest value a specific duty of 45 cents in place of the old duty of 50 cents, the ratio of 45 cents to 50 cents should have been preserved in the reductions of the other specific duties. The next lower specific duty in the old tariff was 40 cents. In the new tariff, to make it consistent with the old, it should have been fixed at 36 cents, whereas it was placed at 24 cents. And in the next lower valuation, where the proper reduction would have been to 27 cents, it is made 18 cents. All the specific duties in this clause were in like manner irregularly and arbitrarily changed, and unduly, as we think, reduced. We have, there- fore, in the schedule recommended, in case of revision, made all the specific duties in this clause, with the exception of the two lowest valu- ations, proportionate to the reduced duty on wool. Bunting clause . — Paragraph 364. The duties on bunting — namely, 10 cents per square yard (reduced from 20 cents), and in addition thereto 35 per centum ad valorem, it is understood were fixed without reference to the duties on wool, and were influenced by the patriotic desire to have them high enough to cause the material for our national flags to be of American production. No change, in case of revision, is recom- mended in the existing duty. Dress-goods clause. — Paragraph 365. Women’s and children’s dress-goods, coat- linings , [and real or imitation] Italian cloths, and goods of like description, composed [wholly or] in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other [like] ani- mals, valued at not exceeding twenty cents per square yard, five[ six] cents per square yard, and in addition thereto, thirty-five per centum ad valorem ; valued at above twenty cents per [the] square yard, seven [eight] cents per square yard, and [in ad- dition thereto] forty per centum ad valorem ; if composed wholly of wool , worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of a mixture of them, nine cents per square yard, and forty per centum ael valorem, hut all such goods with selvedges, made wholly or in part of other materials, or with threads of other materials introduced for the purpose of changing the classification, shall be dutiable at nine cents per square yard, and forty per centum ad valorem : Provided, That all such [But on all] goods weighing over four ounces [and over] per square yard, shall pay a [the] duty of [shall he fifty] thirty-five cents per pound and [in addition thereto] forty [thirty-five] per centum ad valorem. This paragraph in the present tariff has reference to two classes of fabrics — the first part to dress-goods, with cotton warps, and the second part, printed in italics, to all-wool dress goods, the latter clause not ex- isting in the old tariff. The duties upon cotton-warp dress-goods under the tariff of 1867, as well as in the present tariff, had reference chiefly to the goods compet- ing with the cotton-warp dress-goods which constitute the principal production of the great worsted-mills of this country. The specific du- ties were strictly adjusted in the main so as to no more than cover the duties on the wool in the wool part of the goods, and the duty on im- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 317 ported materials, dyestuffs, &c., in the cotton part of the goods.* So accurate and fair were these adjustments considered by the Tariff Com- mission and Congress that in the revision of 1883 they reduced the spe- cific duties on these goods only 1 cent, per square yard — a reduction quite fairly proportioned to the reduction of the duty on the wool. We therefore recommend no change in the duties applicable to the cot- ton-warp dress-goods in case of a revision. The only change which we recommend in this paragraph, so far as it is applicable to cotton warp goods, relates to the concluding proviso. This proviso has been held (incorrectly, as we think) at the Treasury Department to apply only to the all-wool dress goods — a construction which certainly was not contemplated by the framers of the law. The proviso as to goods weighing 4 ounces per square yard was made to prevent cloakings and heavy goods, which should pay duty as cloth, coming in at a less duty, as dress-goods, because adapted to women’s and children’s wear, and should be clearly applicable to cotton-warp goods, as it was in the old law. We recommend such a change in the phraseology as shall accomplish, beyond all doubt, the original object of the proviso. All-wool dr ess- goods clause . — In regard to the all-wool dress- goods clause, of the paragraph under discussion, we regard the specific duty of 9 cents per square yard imposed as inadequate, and inconsistent with the theory of the woolen tariff — that the specific duty should be amply compensatory of duty on the raw material. At the time of the enactment of the tariff of 1867 the possibility of making this class of goods in this country was not contemplated, be- cause at that time the English had not succeeded in their manufacture, and our object was to make what were known as “Bradford” or cotton- warped goods. The same rate of specific duty was therefore given to all-wool dress goods as to cotton- warp goods, the duty upon the former being about 31 \ per cent, less than was imposed upon woolen cloths. This branch of the woolen industry was consequently neglected, which caused a large and constantly-increasing importation of such goods. The legislation of 1883, although contemplating the production of these goods, provided an insufficient, compensating specific duty, as will ap- pear from the following statement: This class of goods can be made only from the best merino combing- wools, which pay the highest rate of duty, namely, 12 cents per pound. Four pounds of wool are required for one pound of goods. This re- quires the manufacturer to pay out for duty on the wool 48 cents for every pound of such goods made by him, while he also has to pay for duty on dye-stuffs and charges on account of duty the further sum of 7.5 cents — a total of 55.5 cents. At 12 cents specific duty to the square yard, as recommended by the Tariff Commission, the compensatory duty which the manufacturer would receive would be — Rate per pound. On goods weighing 3| oz. per square yard 54. 86 cents. On goods weighing 4 oz. per square yard 48. 00 cents. * The accuracy with which this adjustment was made is thus illustrated: The wool part of the ordinary goods was equivalent to one pound for 10 square yards; 53 cents, the equivalent of the duty, charges, &c., on the pound of wool, is equal to 5.3 cents per square yard, which sum was exactly compensatory of tho duty on the wool part of the goods ; so to this was added the duty on the imported materials used in the cotton part of the goods, at least .7 of a cent. So that the duty of 6 cents was barely sufficient to reimburse the amount paid on duties and charges on raw materials. 318 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Therefore, the rate of 12 cents per square yard would be really insuf- ficient to reimburse the duty paid by the manufacturer on and on ac- count of the raw material. Nevertheless, we do not propose a higher rate than this sum in the schedule recommended, in case of a general revision. A consideration which influenced the legislation of 1883 and caused the slightness of reduction applied to the principal class in this para- graph should always be kept in view. This is, that the domestic in - dustry engaged in the production of these goods is subjected to a heav- ier foreign competition than any other in our whole industry — forty mil- lions of square yards of domestic production in 1880 struggling against ninety millions of square yards of foreign production, and competing with a foreign industry abroad which employs in England and France more capital and labor than in all other branches of the woolen interest. The made-lip clothing clauses . — The two paragraphs 366 and 367 cover ready made clothing and wearing apparel, except knit goods. They are the defenses of the clothing manufacture, which is the culmination of the wool industry — the last of the series of manipulations, commencing with the shearing of the sheep and ending in the finished garment; and sending its products directly to the farmer, it completes the circuit of exchanges in the wool industry. The national legislation for this in- terest is therefore quite fitly made a part of the wool and woolen tariff. A sufficient defense to this manufacture is of especial interest to the wool manufacturers proper, as this industry furnishes them the most important of their customers. Paragraph 366 relates to the clothing manufacture in general. It is obvious that at least as high a specific duty should be placed upon clothing as upon cloth, as the maker of such clothing is compelled to pay the whole amount of the increased duty on cloth consequent upon the duty on clothing- wool. Theoretically, a higher ad valorem duty is required for clothing on account of the increased and high cost of skilled labor in the manufacture, and the great loss of material in cutting and fitting. In the present tariff the specific duty is made five cents higher than on cloth, and the ad valorem rate lower than on high-priced cloths. In the schedule recommended, in case of revision, we have made the specific duty the same as that recommended for cloth, and the ad valo- rem rate 5 per cent, higher than the highest rate on cloths. Paragraph 367 relates to “outside garments for ladies and children’s apparel,” the fabrication of which gives extensive employment in our principal cities to a necessitous class of female labor. The manufacture in this country has of late been exposed to an oppressive foreign com- petition, which is especially facilitated by the large quantity of silk, laces, and trimmings entering into the fabrication of these articles, upon which the foreigner pays no duty, while the domestic manufacturer is subjected to the highest range of duties. The present tariff recognizes this difficulty by imposing upon these articles a specific duty of 45 cents, and in addition thereto 45 per cent- um. The ad valorem rate in this clause should be also 5 per cent, higher than the highest rate upon cloths. The Small- Wares Clause . — Paragraph 368 inches the smaller miscel- laneous and multitudinous articles composed of wool or worsted which in France are known as “ passementerie ,” and in this country as “small wares.” Their production involves a greater proportion of labor and a greater amount of skilled labor than any other class of wool manufact- ures. As, in the articles referred to in the last paragraph, materials of REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 319 of silk and other articles paying the highest duty enter largely into their fabrication, it was recognized in the tariff of 1867 that they are entitled to the full specific duty given to cloths and to a higher ad valorem duty than any other class; the duty under that tariff being 50 cents specific and 50 per cent, ad valorem. In the present tariff the old ad valorem rate is retained, but the specific duty is reduced to 30 cents per pound. The specific duty, we think, in case of revision, should be restored to an equality with that upon cloth. The Carpet Clauses . — The remaining paragraphs of the w.oolen sched- ule, namely, 369 to 378, inclusive, with the exception of the last para- graph, 378, # relate to carpets. In the construction of the carpet clauses of the tariff of 1867 the general principle applied to woolens proper — that is, of making the specific duties per square yard countervail the amount paid on account of the duties on the material used, and the ad valorem duty for the protection of the manufactures the same as given to other branches of the woolen manufacture — were adopted with the utmost strictness. The data upon which the specific duties upon all the principal varieties of carpets were fixed in that tariff, comprising many details, are given at length in the “Reports of a commission ap- pointed for a revision of the revenue system of the United States, 1865- ’66,” submitted to Congress by your Department, and printed as a pub- lic document. The full data as to carpets will be found on pages 453, 459, and 460 of that document. In the appendix to this statement t will be found a table showing the amount of duties and charges on the ma- terials used in the manufacture of the leading varieties, and the neu- tralising duties on carpets required, based ujion the carpet- wool duties in the tariff of 1867 ; and a corresponding table based upon the carpet- wool duties of the tariff of 1883. The reductions on carpet-wools in the revision of 1883 were from 6 to 5 cents on wools costing above 12 cents intended for washed wools, and from 3 to 2J cents on wools costing below 12 cents intended for unwashed wools — a reduction of one-sixth. The specific duties under the old tariff having been for sixteen years recognized as conformable to the principles of that tariff, or, rather, as within the amount required for neutralizing the duty on the raw material, it would seem that in the revision the reduction of the specific duties on carpets should have been exactly proportioned to the reduction of the duty on carpet-wools. In the revision of 1883, however, the reductions of the specific duties on carpets were irregularly and arbitrarily made, and the symmetry of the system was more disturbed than in any other part of the woolen tariff. This symmetry, we think, in case of further revision, ought to be re- stored ; and the specific duties on carpets, recommended in case of re- vision, are proposed with that object. From the tables above referred to, to be found in the appendix, we have prepared the following table, showing the neutralizing duties re- quired and the specific duties actually imposed in the tariff of 1867, and also the neutralizing duties required in the tariff of 1883, the specific duties imposed, and the specific duties, as determined by a reduction of one-sixth, from the duties of 1867 — the latter being those recommended in case of revision. * In paragraph 378, relating to endless belts, or felts for paper or printing machines, no change is recommended in case of revision, except a restoration of the old ad va- lorem duty, t Appendix D. 320 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Neutralizing duties required under wool duties o f 1867. Specific duties im- posed in tariff of 1867. Neutralizing duties required under wool duties o f 1883. Specific duties im- posed in tariff of 1883. Proper specific duties under wool duties of 1883, estimated byre- duction of t from spe- cific duties of 1867. Ingrain carpets : Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Two-ply 15. 07 12 I 12.56 1 8 10 Three-nly 19. 50 17 16.25 i 12 14 Tapestry carpets : ! Brussels 30. 50 28 25.42 20 23 Velvets 44. 31 40 36. 93 25 3* Carpets wrought by Jacquard machine : Brussels 1 49. 75 44 41. 46 30 36 Wilton 75. 32 70 62. 77 45 58 No reference is made in the above table to Axminster carpets. In 1867 these carpets were not made in this country, and as the proper elements of a specific duty could not be known an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent, simply was imposed upon them. Having been since that time made here, under the name of Moquette carpets, a compound duty was applied to them as to other carpets, by the tariff of 1883. They should receive at least the same rates, specific and ad valorem, as "Wil- ton carpets. The arbitrary and undue reduction of the specific duties was not the only reduction applied to carpets in the revision of 1883. While an ad valorem duty of not less than 35 percent, was given to all other branches of the woolen manufacture, the ad valorem duty on carpets, for no ap- parent reason, and against the recommendation of the Tariff Commis- sion, was reduced from 35 per cent, to 30 per cent., making the total reduction on the principal varieties of carpets as great as 25 per cent. The hardship of this reduction is more manifest when it is considered that it is applied to a branch of manufacture whose requisitions for tech- nical skill and perfections of machinery are not surpassed in the whole range of the textile industry, whose fabrics must be changed every year to meet the demands of fashion, and whose execution requires the most pro- found knowledge of the principles of decorative art and of the mysteries of dyeing — a branch of manufacture whose inventions are adopted by the very mills in Europe with which it competes, and whose products are admitted to be the best illustrations of American achievements in the textile art — an industry, in short, entitled, upon every consideration for which protection is ordinarily claimed, to the very highest measure of national encouragement; yet this industry is given a protective duty over which the average wool-growing industry has an advantage of 47 per cent., the principal branches of the cotton and flax industries an advantage of 33 J per cent., and the silk industry an advantage of 66§ per cent. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. As before intiroated, we submit a corrected schedule of woolen duties, constructed in conformity with principles approved by both branches of the national wool industry, and commended by all who be- lieve in the American doctrines of a national political economy — rather as a standard by which the extent of the late reductions in compensa- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 321 tion and protection may be determined, than as a system to be at pres- ent adopted. The existing woolen tariff, notwithstanding its imper- fections, is conformed in its main structure to the principles which we approve. It preserves the grand and essential features of that struct- ure, the system of compound duties ; it admits of large protection to wool, and reconciles, or ought to reconcile, the two interests of wool production and wool manufacture ; while its reductions, substantial though not excessive, ought to conciliate those equally opposed to high protection and revolutionary changes. The doubtful chances of im- proving a tariff thus measurably good will not justify exposure, by an- other revision, to the perils of inconsiderate legislation and unfriendly amendments ; and for these reasons we desire that the existing wool and woolen tariff may for the present be undisturbed. Proposed remedy for undervaluation . — While the present tariff, in our opinion, should not be changed, we think its efficacy for revenue purposes and the protection of manufacturers and honest importers may be increased by improved methods of administration, fortunately, as we think, within your special province, and by improved adminis- trative legislation, which you, above all others, are powerful to induce. We recognize with gratitude the administrative reforms which you have already instituted for correcting the undervaluation of imported merchandise entered for customs duties, and would respectfully urge you to exert your potent influence upon Congress for the repeal of the section of the “anti moieties” act of Tune22, 1874, whereby the burden of proof of intent to defraud in undervaluation is imposed upon the Gov- ernment, and for the enactment of a law imposing effectual penalties for undervaluation. CONCLUSION. It will be observed that in this communication, which we need not say is addressed not only to you, but through you to Congress and the public, we have not urged, as has been customary with this association in former times, any argument for encouragement in behalf of the im- portant industry most closely allied with our own— that of wool pro- duction. Circumstances, which we need not mention, seem to have made it expedient that each branch of the national wool industry should act independently in representing its interests as connected with tariff legislation. As the domestic wool-grower, in view of the high cost of labor and the high scale of living required by American civilization, cannot profitably send his wools abroad, and as every pound of foreign cloth imported — displacing a pound of American cloth which might be made here — at the same time displaces a quadruple weight of domestic wool, it might be claimed that the interests of our nearest allies are sufficiently served by securing defenses for the manufactures which constitute their only market. This was the narrow and selfish argu- ment for exclusive protection to manufactures in former times. A broader and more just policy now regards protection to any distinct in- terest but as a part of a universal system ; and while we demand for our own finished products, and more imperatively still for the labor by which they are wrought, the whole power of defense granted by the Constitution against other nations — defense against their policy, their pernicioils trade, their extorted and pauper labor, no less than against their arms — we would extend the same defense to every home product S. Ex. 72—— 21 322 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. of the farm, the mine, and the forest, thus making our own identical with the national prosperity. Respectfully, your obedient servants, William Whitman, Boston, Mass., President. D. L. Einstein, New York, N. Y. ^ Thomas Dolan, Philadelphia, Pa. > Vice-Presidents. Samuel R. Payson, Boston, Mass. ) Benjamin Phipps, Boston, Mass., Treasurer. Ritfus S. Frost, Boston, Mass. Joseph Sawyer, Boston, Mass. John L. Houston, Hartford, Conn. Charles F. Fairbanks, Boston, Mass. George Maxwell, Rockville, Conn. John N. Carpender, New Brunswick, N. J. James Dobson, Philadelphia, Pa. Lewis N. Gilbert, Ware, Mass. John L. Hayes, Secretary. At the annual meeting of the National Association of Wool Manu- facturers in the city of New York, on the 7th of October instant, the above paper was read at length, and by a resolution of the association was unanimously approved. (Attest:) JOHN L. HAYES, Secretary. Members of > Executive Committee , Appendix A. Standard schedule of icoolen duties based upon wool duties of 1883. 362. Woolen or •worsted cloths, woolen or worsted shawls, and all manufactures of wool of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound, 45 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem ; valued at above 80 cents per pound, 45 cents per pound, and in addition thereto 40 per cent, ad valorem. 363. Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit-goods, and all goods made on knittiug- frames, balmorals, woolen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of every descrip- tion, composed wholly or in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals (except such as are composed in part of wool), not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound; valued at above 30 cents per pound, and not exceeding 40 cents per pound, 18 cents per pound; valued at above 40 cents per pound, and not exceeding 60 cents per pound, 27 cents per pound ; valued at above 60 cents per pound, and not exceeding 80 cents per pound, 36 cents per pound ; and in addition thereto, upon all the above- named articles, 35 per cent, ad valorem ; valued at above 80 cents per pound, 45 cents per pound, and in addition thereto, 40 per cent, ad valorem. 364. Bunting, 10 cents per square yard, and in addition thereto 35 per cent, ad va- lorem. 365. Women’s and children’s dress goods, coat iinings, Italian cloths, and goods of like description, composed in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, valued at not exceeding 20 cents per square yard, 5 cents per square yard, and in addition thereto, 35 per cent, ad valorem ; valued at above 20 cents per square yard, 7 cents per square yard, and 40 percent, ad valorem ; if composed wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of a mixture of them, 12 cents per square yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem, but all such goods with selvages, made wholly or in part of other materials, or with threads of other mate- rials introduced for the purpose of changing the classification, shall bo dutiable at 12 cents per square yard and 40 per cent, ad valorem ; provided, that all goods enumer- ated in this paragraph weighing over 4 ounces per square yard shall pa*y a duty of 45 cents per pound aud 40 per cent, ad valorem. 366. Clothing, ready made, and wearing apparel of every description, not specially enumerated or provided foriu this act, aud balmoral skirts, and skirting, and goods of similar description, or used for like purposes, composed wholly or in part of wool, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 323 worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer, except knit-goods, 45 cents per pound, and in addition thereto, 45 per cent, ad valorem. 307. Cloaks, dolmans, jackets, talmas, ulsters, or other outside garments for ladies’ and childrens’ apparel, and goods of similar description, or used for like purposes, composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer (except knit-goods), 45 cents per pound, and in addition thereto, 45 per cent, ad valorem. 368. Webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, fringes, gimps, cords, cords and tassels, dress trimmings, head nets, buttons, or barrel buttons, or buttons of other forms, for tassels or ornaments, wrought by hand or braided by machinery, made of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of which wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals is a component material, 45 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 50 per centum ad valorem. 369. Aubusson, Axminster, and chenille carpets, and carpets woven whole for rooms, 58 cents per square yard, and, in apdition thereto, 35 per centum ad valorem. 370. Saxony, Wilton, and Tournav velvet carpets, 58 cents per square yard, and, in addition thereto 35 per centum ad valorem. 371. Brussels carpets, 36 cents per square yard, and in addition thereto 35 per centum ad valorem. 372. Patent velvet and tapestry velvet carpets, printed on the warp or otherwise, 33 cents per square yard, and in addition thereto 35 per centum ad valorem. 373. Tapestry Brussels carpets, printed on the warp or otherwise, 23 cents per square yard, and in addition thereto 35 per centum ad valorem. 374. Treble ingrain, three-ply, and worsted-chain Venetian carpets, 14 cents per square yard, and in addition thereto 35 per centum ad valorem. 375. Yarn Venetian and two-ply ingrain carpets, 10 cents per square yard, and, in addition thereto, 35 per centum ad valorem. 376. Druggets and bookings, printed, colored, or otherwise, 15 cents per square yard, and in addition thereto 35 per cent, ad valorem. 377. Hemp or jute carpeting, 6 cents per square yard. 378. Carpets and carpetings of wool, flax, or cotton, or parts of either, or other mate- rial not otherwise herein specified, 40 per cent, ad valorem ; and mats, rugs, screens, covers, hassocks, bedsides, and other portions of carpets or carpetings, shall be sub- jected to the rate of duty herein imposed on carpets or carpeting of like character or description ; and the duty on all other mats not exclusively of vegetable material, e creens, hassocks, and rugs, shall be 40 per cent, ad valorem. 379. Endless belts or felts for paper or printing machines, 20 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem. Appendix B. Statement showing the number of x>ounds of wool required for a pound of finished cloth. It was the concurrent testimony of experienced manufacturers in 186 L and 1864, when the woolen tariffs of those dates were established, that 4 pounds of Mestiza wool, paying the average duty on clothing wools, were required to make a pound of finished cloth. That all doubt might be removed as to the correctness of this esti- mate, the executive committee of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, in submitting the statements upon which the woolen tariff of 1867 was based, sought to obtain memoranda of actual experiments made, without reference to any discussion of tariff questions. Amoug other statements, they obtained from the books of the Proctorville Woolen Mill, situated in the State of Vermont, a statement of the semi-annual production of cloth, the consumption of wool in making such cloth, and the weight of each yard of cloth manufactured. From this statement it appeared that certain lots of cloth made in that mill from the 1st day of January, 1865, to the last day of June, inclusive — to wit, six months — and from the 1st day of July, 1865, to the last day of December, 1865, were manufactured wholly from Mestiza clothing wool. The accounts of the mill show that there were manufactured in the mill, in the first six months, 77,320 yards of blaclc cassimeres ; that 32.4 ounces of wool, as jmrehased in the market, wore consumed in the manufacture of each yard of said 77,320 yards of cloth ; and that the average weight per yard of the cloth was 8.2 ounces ; or, in other words, 32.4 ounces of wool were required to make 8.2 ounces of finished cloth. The accounts of the mill also showed that in the last six months there were manufactured, wholly from Mes- tiza wool, 79, 606£ yards of. black doeskins; that the average weight of said doeskins 324 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. was 8.2 ounces per yard, and that 31.1 ounces of wool were required to make 8.2 ounces of such cloth. In the discussions before the Tariff Commission, preceding the legislation of 1883, the allegation was made, though unsupported by evidence, that it does not require 4 pounds of foreign unwashed wool of the kinds at present in vogue to make a pound of finished goods. To refute this allegation the following statements were submitted to the Commission : “Mr. Robert Middleton, agent of the Globe Woolen Mills at Utica, N. Y. — mills of very high celebrity — states that 4 pounds of tine Australian unwashed wool will yield but 15 ounces of fine finished cloth such as that company is making. “ Mr. David Ramsden, superintendent of the Oswego Falls Manufacturing Com- pany, states that 4 pounds of unwashed Australian wool will yield only 15 ounces of the goods that that company manufactures. “ The items of his estimate are as follows : Ounces. Ounces. Four pounds of greasy or unwashed Australian wool 64 Loss in sorting, 2 per cent 1.28 Loss iu scouring, 60 per cent 38. 40 Loss in noils made in combing 6. 14 Loss in preparing and spinning 1. 84 Loss in dyeing and finishing 1. 34 49 15 “It is the opinion of other manufacturers that the loss in the processes of manufact- ure is placed too low. “The wools used by Mr. Ramsden are among the lightest of the foreign clothing wools, or among those containing the least grease, the wools from the Argentine Republic and Cape of Good Hope being much heavier. “It is true that this great shrinkage in the case above referred to is not all lost, a part of the waste in this case consisting of noils. But the noils are worth much less than the foreign or original cost of the wool from which they were made, without the duty ; that is, the manufacturer paid the duty ou the wool and the noils included in them. In selling the noils he does not get back the duty paid upon the noils. And the value of the noils should consequently be eliminated from the calculation. “Mr. Henry S. Coe, treasurer of the Washington Mills, regarded as one of the most reliable experts in America in the woolen manufacture, makes the following state- ments : “The number of pounds of finished cloth which 100 pounds of scoured wool yields is about as follows: Loss in manu- facturing. Cloths and goods having a luster Pounds. 65 70 75 Per cent. 35 30 25 Fancy colored suitings, cassimeres, &c Plain flannels, coatings, &c “(These are not estimates made for this statement, but are the results of careful ob- servations made in the Washington Mills, to determine the cost of manufacturing the goods, and therefore the prices at which they could be sold.) “ On the above basis the wools usually imported will take or require the following lo yield a pound of finished cloth, according to Bowes & Co., of Liverpool, an accepted authority : Goods. Average Cape wool will shrink 67 per cent, in scouring. Average Mestiza shrink 65 per cent. Average Ade- laide and Australian shrink 62 per cent. Faced goods Pounds. 4. 66 4. 33 4.04 Pounds. 4. 40 4. 09 3.81 Pounds. 4. 05 3. 70 3. 51 Suitings cassimeres &.c. Flannels, coatings, &c revision of the tariff. 325 “The formulas by which the above calculations am made may he illustrated as fol- lows : “ Loss in Cape wool in scouring, 6? per cent., leaves 33 pounds clean wool. “ This clean wool loses 35 per cent, in manufacturing. 33 pounds. less 35 per cent., 11.55 pounds. 21.45 pounds of cloth. 100 pounds (clean wool) -f- 21.45 = 4.66 pounds of wool to 1 pound of cloth.” That the estimate of 4 pounds of vfool for a pound of finished goods is a correct one is further shown by the following considerations : The existing wool tariff, by placing a double duty on washed wools and a treble duty on scoured wool of the first class, prohibits the manufacturer from importing the latter wools, and compels him to buy all his wools in an unwashed state. The law, by making the duty on scoured or clean clothing wool three times the duty on unwashed wool, clearly admits and recognizes that three pounds of unwashed foreign wool are required to make one pound of clean or scoured wool ready for the picker, or before the first processes of manufacture, involving a further loss, are commenced. Three pounds of wool entering into the finished cloth are thus accounted for, and it is showD above that there is a further loss on clean wool in manufacturing of from 25 to 35 per cent., according to the cloth, which will more than account for the other pound of unwashed wool required to make a pound of finished cloth. Appendix C. Tables showing the prices at which wools of all classes could he bought in 1884 in the princi- pal foreign markets, the existing duty upon them , the cost of importation ( including com- missions) from the port of shipment to Boston, the total cost at Boston, the percen tage of duty upon their cost, and the percentage of duly and cost of importation ( including com- missions) upon their cost. PRELIMINARY NOTES UPON THE TABLES FOLLOWING. Table 1 refers exclusively to unwashed merino wools, designated under the law as class 1, clothing wools. It is to be observed that all wools not described or desig- nated in classes 2 and 3 are classed as clothing or class 1 wools. This classification being by blood, embraces a wide range of wools that are better adapted for comb- ing than for carding purposes. A very large proportion of the wool imported under this class is known to the trade as combing- wool, and is used as such. It will be noticed that the lowest-cost wool named in this table is 10 cents per pound at London. Some may think it unfair to base a calculation on so low a price ; but it is not so, for this price is an actual quotation for Adelaide greasy wool, classed as “superior,” and large quantities of wool of this character are frequently sold in London at a less price than quoted. We have begun with a valuation of 20 cents per pound on wools im- ported direct from Australia, although wools are sold there at less than 10 cents per pouud, because we do not wish the table to be too long, and because most of the wools now imported to this country from Australia cost from 20 to 28 cents per pound. We have not included in this table the low-priced wools grown in Africa and South America, because so few of them are now imported that it is difficult to ascertain their cost of importation. It will be seen that on wool costing 10 cents per pound at London the duty is 10 cents per pound = 100 per cent. The cost of importation, including com- mission, is 1.78 cents per pound = 17.80 per cent. In other words, a pound of wool costing 10 cents at London costs, landed at Boston (including commissions, 21.78 cents. It is apparent that the duty is 100 per cent, on the cost, and that the duty and expenses of importation amount to 117.80 per cent, on the cost. On wool costing at London 29 cents per pound— the highest price (fractional parts of a cent excluded) at which it can be imported under the 10-cent duty — the duty is 10 cents per pound = 34.48 percent. ; the cost of importation (including commissions) is 4.5 cents per pound = 13.97 per cent. In other words, one pound of wool costing at London 29 cents per pound costs at Boston (including commissions) 43.5 cents per pound ; the duty on it is equal to 34.48 per cent., and the duty and cost of importation is 48.45 percent. On clasB 1 unwashed wool it is a fair statement to make that the duty ranges from 34.48 per cent, to 100 per cent, on the cost, and that the duty and cost of importation range from’ 48.45 per cent to 117.80 per cent, on the cost. On some lower- priced wools imported direct from the place of growth the percentage of duty and cost of importation would be still greater ; but we leave out of the table such ex- treme cases. 326 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. It is to be noticed that washed wools in class 1 are subject to double the duty <>f unwashed. Australian Merino washed fleece wool ranges in price at London from 26 cents to 72 cents per pound. On Tasmanian washed fleeces the price is 26 cents per pound and the duty is 20 cents per pound, or 76.92 per cent. On Port Philip washed fleece, costing at London 33 cents per pound, the duty is 24 cents per pound, or 72.72 per cent. The duty on scoured wool of class 1 is three times the amount of duty on unwashed ; and on New Zealand scoured wool, costing at London 31 cents per pound, the duty is 36 cents per pound, or 116.13 per cent, on its cost. On Port Philip scoured fleece, costing at London 42 cents per pound, the duty is 36 cents per pound, or 85.70 per cent. The tariff is so arranged as to compel the importations of class 1 wools to be in the greasy state, and almost the whole of them imported into the United States are in the grease. It has been established that-it requires an average of four pounds of such wool to make one pound of cloth; consequently, the American manufacturer who uses such wool is compelled to pay the transportation charges on from 2£ to 3 pounds grease and dirt-in the wool, which is all waste, that is required to make one pound of cloth. WASTE. On wool waste and on other substitutes for wool there is a duty of 10 cents per pound, which is practically prohibitory. Such substitutes vary in prices very much, depending upon their nature and condition. There is no standard and quotable price for them. The duty on them in many cases amounts to several times their foreign value. This enormous duty on wool substitutes is very burdensome, because they can be so usefully employed to mix with wool in the manufacture of cheap heavy cloth. Table 2 refers exclusively to class 2 combing-wools, or what are known as wools of English blood. In this class the range of the percentage of duty to cost is not so ex- treme as in class 1 ; yet the duty varies from 37.4 to 71.43 per cent, on competing wools, and the duty and cost of importation (including commission) range from 50.67 to 86.50 per cent. These wools are long, coarse, lieavy-fibered, and are grown on what are known as mutton sheep. Attention is directed to the fact that cross-bred and English-blood wools grown in Australasia, if imported washed, are subject to twice the amount of duty of unwashed wool. Washed wools of this class range in value from 19 to 43 cents per pound at London. On such wool, costing 19 cents per pound, the duty is 20 cents per pound, 105.26 per cent, on the cost. The duty upon scoured wool of this class is three times the amount of the duty imposed upon washed aud un- washed. Such scoured wools range in price from 19 cents to 44 cents per pound at London. On this wool, costing 19 cents per pound, the duty is 30 cents per pound, or 157.89 per cent., and when it costs 34 cents per pound the same duty is equivalent to 88.24 per cent. Table 3 refers exclusively to class 3, carpet wools. All of the figures given therein are based on actual transactions. During the last few years there has beeu a great decline in English wools, caused by changes of fashion in women’s dress-goods, and these wools are now used very largely by English carpet manufacturers, because of their low price. Our carpet manufacturers are excluded from using these wools, be- cause, with the heavy duty imposed upon them, they would cost too much. If these English wools should again be used for dress-goods theirprice would be increased, and the English carpet manufacturer would be compelled to draw a larger proportion of his supply of wool from those countries and in that class which are now brought to our market. Such a change of fashion and demand would increase the prices of carpet- wools abroad, and very many of them which are at present subject to a duty of 2£ cents per pound would then, in consequence of their increased value, be dutiable at 5 cents per pound — an increase in the duty of 100 per cent. In this table extreme cases are omitted. It will be seen that the percentage of duty ranges from 20.89 per cent, to 34.06 percent, on cost at port of shipment, and that the duty and cost of importation (includ- ing commission) ranges from 47.70 per cent, to 62.33 per cent, on cost at port of ship- ment. It seems to us that these tables demonstrate that there is now a sufficiently high, if not an unnecessarily high, duty on this great staple for the full protection of the American grower of raw material. We are of the opinion that the attention of the slieep- growersinthe old and thickly populated states of this country should be given primarily to the raising of sheep for human food aud for breeding purposes a: d secondarily to the wool. The wools that will be most needed during tiie next decade are tine merino combing, fine cross-bred combing, and medium fine combing wools. What is known in the trade as No. 1 combing or half blood combing wool is relatively in the most limited supply all over the world. It is very difficult to find in quantity among foreign wools any th" t will take the place of our American No. 1, nr half-blood de- laine and combing wool. REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 327 . Table No. 1. — Class I, Clothing Wools. [DUTY — Unwashed: Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound; valued at exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound. Washed: Wools of this class pay twice and scoured wools three times, the amount of duty imposed upon unwashed wool.] Kind of wool. Port of shipment. • Cost per pound at port of shipment. Duty per pound Cost of importation at Boston, including com- mission, per pound. Total duty and cost of im- portation at Boston, in- cluding commission, per pound. Total cost per pound at Boston. P ercentage of duty on cost at port of shipment. Percentage of duty and ex- pense of importation, in- cluding commission, on cost at port of shipment. Adelaide, greasy 10 10 1.78 11. 78 21.78 100. 00 117. 80 107. 82 99. 50 do 11 10 1. 86 11. 86 22. 86 90. 90 Cape, do do 12 10 1.94 11. 94 23. 94 83. 33 Sydney, ...do Tasmania, . . .do do 13 10 2. 02 12. 02 25. 02 76. 92 92. 46 86. 50 81. 20 ... do 14 10 2.11 12. 11 26. 11 71. 43 do 15 10 2. 18 12. 18 27. 18 66. 67 do 16 10 2. 26 12.26 28. 26 62. 50 76. 62 ....do 17 10 2. 35 12. 35 29. 35 58. 82 72. 65 69. 05 do 18 10 2.43 12. 43 30. 43 55. 55 do do 19 20 10 10 2. 52 3. 07 12. 52 13. 07 31. 52 33. 07 52. 63 50. 00 65. 90 65. 35 Port Phillip, Sydney, Queensland, Adelaide, New Zealand, Tas- mania, and Cape, do 21 10 3. 12 13. 12 34. 12 47. 62 62. 48 ...do 22 10 3. 17 13.17 35. 17 46. 45 43. 48 59. 87 do 23 10 ' 3.22 13. 22 36. 22 57. 48 do 24 10 3. 54 13. 54 37. 54 41. 67 56. 38 ... do 25 10 3. 59 13. 59 38. 59 40. 00 54. 36 greasy. do 26 10 3. 64 13. 64 39. 64 38. 46 52. 46 do 27 10 3. 68 13. 68 40. 68 37. 04 50. 67 do 28 10 3.74 13. 74 41. 74 35. 71 49. 07 do do 29 31 10 12 4. 05 4. 51 14. 05 16. 51 43. 05 47. 51 34. 48 38.71 48. 45 53. 26 do 32 12 4. 56 16. 56 48. 56 37. 50 51.75 do 33 12 4. 61 16. 61 49. 61 36. 36 50. 34 f Sydney 20 10 4. 77 14. 77 34. 77 50. 00 73. 85 Port Phillip . Sydney 20 22 10 10 4. 97 4.96 14. 97 14. 96 34. 97 36. 96 50. 00 45. 45 74. 85 68. 00 Sydney and Port Phillip wools, imported directs 1 Port Phillip . do Sydney 22 24 24 10 10 10 5. 16 5. 36 5. 17 15. 16 15. 36 15. 17 37. 16 39. 36 39. 17 45. 45 41. 67 41. 67 68. 91 64. 00 63. 21 from place of growth. do 26 10 5. 36 15. 36 41. 36 38. 46 59. 08 Port Phillip . do 26 28 10 10 5. 56 5. 77 15. 56 15.77 41. 56 43. 77 38. 46 35. 71 59. 85 56.32 Sydney 28 10 5.55 15.55 43. 55 35.71 55. 53 328 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Table No. 2. — Class II, Combing Wools. [DUTY — Washed and unwashed: Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound, 10 cents per pound; valued at exceeding 30 cents per pound, 12 cents per pound. Scoured wools of this class pay three times the duty imposed upon washed and unwashed.] Kind of wool. Port of shipment. Cost per pound at port of shipment. Duty per pound. Cost of importation at Boston, including com- mission, per pound. Total duty ond cost of im- portation at Boston, in-l eluding commission, per pound. Total cost per pound at Boston. Percentage of duty on cost at port of shipment. Percentage of duty and ex- penseof importation, in- cluding commission, on costat'portof shipment. English washed Liverpool . . . 18 10 2. 81 12. 81 30.81 55.55 71. 17 Dn do 19 10 2. 87 12. 87 31.87 52.63 67. 74 Do do 20 10 3. 07 13. 07 33. 07 50. 00 65. 35 Do . . do 21 10 3. 12 13. 12 34. 12 47. 62 62. 48 Do do 22 10 3. 17 13. 17 35. 17 45.45 59. 86 Do 23 10 3. 22 13. 22 36. 22 43.48 57. 48 Do do 24 10 3. 54 13. 54 37. 54 41. 67 56. 38 Do . _ do ] 25 10 3. 59 13. 59 38.59 40. 00 54. 36 Do do 26 10 3. 64 13. 64 39. 64 38.46 52. 46 Dn ...do 27 10 3. 68 13. 68 40. 68 ; 37. 04 50. 67 Canada washed Hamilton 20 10 2. 60 12. 60 32. 60 50. 00 63. 00 Do . . do 21 10 2. 65 12. 65 33.65 47. 62 60. 24 i r London 14 10 2. 11 12.11 26.11 71. 43 86. 50 Australian and New Zea- | do 15 10 2. 18 12. 18 27.18 66. 67 81.20 land, unwashed, cross- 1 do 16 10 2.26 12. 26 28. 26 62. 50 76. 62 bred, and English-] do 17 10 2. 35 12. 35 29.35 58. 83 72. 65 blood wools. do 18 10 2. 43 12.43 30. 43 55. 55 69. 05 1 [ do 19 10 2. 52 12. 52 31.52 52. 63 65. 90 Table No. 3. — Class III , Carpet wools and other similar wools. [DUTY . — Washed and unwashed : Valued at not exceeding 12 cents per pound, 2| cents per pound ; valued at over 12 cents per pound, 5 cents per pound. Scoured wools of this class pay three times the duty imposed upon washed and unwashed.] ’ Kind of wool. Port of shipment. Cost per pound at port of ' shipment. Cost per pound at port of shipment.* Cost per pound of importa- tion to Boston, including commissions. Specific duty per pound. Total duty and cost of im- portation per pound at Bos- ton, including commissions. Total cost per pound at Bos- ton. Total cost per pound at Bos- ton, plus 5 per cent. [ Per cent, of total dnty on : cost at port* of shipment. Per cent, of total duty and ex- penses of importations, in- cludingcommission,on cost, at port of shipment. 1. Persian Alexandretta Pence. 5. 17 Cts. 10.51 Cts. 1. 88 Cts. 2.50 Cts. 4. 38 Cts. 14.89 Cts. 15. 63 Per cent. 23.79 Per cent. 41.67 2. Persian do 5# 11.74 2. 10 2. 50 4. 60 16. 34 17. 16 21.29 39.18 3. Damascus do 5j 10. 63 1.37 2. 50 3. 87 14. 50 15. 22 23.52 36.41 4. Salonica Marseilles . . Francs 1.37 lc K. 11.95 1. 17 2. 50 3.67 15. 62 16. 40 20. 92 30. 71 5. Scotch, unwashed Liverpool . . . i Pence. 5h 11.89 1. 2. 50 3.75 15. 64 16. 42 21. 03 31.54 6. Scotch, washed . . do 7i 14. 66 96 5. 00 5. 96 20. 64 21.67 34.06 40. 60 7. East India, white — do lOi 21. 26 .53 5.00 5.53 26. 79 28. 13 23. 52 26. 01 .Valparaiso, bought - - do 5| 11. 89 .60 2. 50 3.10 14. 99 15. 74 21. 03 26.07 in Liverpool. 9. Criolla Montevideo. Peraroba. $2. 23 9. 29 3. 29 2.50 5.79 15. 08 15.83 26. 91 62. 33 10. Cordova Kosario Peraroba. j 24£ rls. 11. 97 3. 21 2. 50 5. 71 17. 68 18. 56 20.89 1 47. 70 Exchange at $4.86. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 329 Appendix D. CARPETS TARIFF OF 1867. Table showing the amount of duties and charges on the materials used in the manufacture of a running yard and a square yard of the leading varieties of carpets, the fractions of cents and of ounces being expressed by decimals. Items. Ingrain carpets. Tapestry carpets printed on the warp. Carpets wrought by the Jaquard machine. Two-ply. Three-ply. Brussels. Velvet. Brussels. Wilton. Neutralizing duties and charges, Cts. Cts. Cts. Cts. Cts. Cts. viz: Duties on the wools used — 11. 70 15. 23 11. 80 17. 71 24. 92 39.36 Duties on the linen or tow yarn 6. 00 8.00 6. 00 8. 00 Duties on drugs and other imported materials 2. 00 2. 50 3. 00 4. 50 3. 00 4. 00 Totals of neutralizing duties 13. 70 17. 73 20. 80 30. 21 33. 92 51. 36 Charges on account of du- ties, 10 per cent 1. 37 1. 77 2. 08 3. 02 3. 39 5.13 Totals of neutralizing du- ties and charges per run- - ning yard 15. 07 19. 50 22. 88 33. 23 37. 31 56.49 Totals of neutralizing du- ties and charges per square yard 15. 07 19. 50 30. 50 44. 31 49. 75 75.32 Specific duties under tariff of 1867 12. 00 17. 00 28. 00 40. 00 44. 00 70. 00 On all the above, in addition, an ad valorem duty of 35 per cent. CARPETS TARIFF OF 1883. Table showing the amount of duties and charges on the materials used in the manufacture of a running yard and a square yard of the leading varieties of carpets ; the fractions of cents and of ounces being expressed by decimals. Items. Ingrain carpets. Tapestry carpets printed on the warp. Carpets wrought by the Jaquard machine. Two-ply. Three-ply Brussels. Velvet. Brussels. Wilton. Neutralizing duties and charges, viz : Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Duties on the wools used 9. 75 12. 69 9. 83 14. 76 20. 77 32. 80 Duties on the linen or tow yarn 6. 00 8. 00 6. 00 8. 00 Duties on drugs and other imported ma- terials 2.00 2. 50 3. 00 4.50 3. 00 4. 00 Totals of neutralizing duties 11. 42 14. 78 17. 33 25.17 28. 27 42. 80 Charges on account of duties, 10 per cent 1. 14 1. 48 1. 73 2. 52 2. 83 4.28 Totals of neutralizing duties and charges per running yard 12. 56 16. 25 19. 07 27. 69 31. 09 47. 08 Total of neutralizing duties and charges per square yard 12. 56 16. 25 25.42 36.9 41. 46 62. 77 Specific duties under tariff of 1883 8. 00 12. 00 20. 00 25. 00 30. 00 45T00 On all the above, in addition, an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent. 330 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The following printed circular, received at this Department from a woolen manufacturing company, appears to have been sent by the Na- tional Association of Wool Manufacturers to the wool manufacturers throughout the country: National Association of Wool Manufacturers, Office, 70 Kilby Street, Boston, Mass., October 28, 1885. Dear sir: You will receive by the mail which carries this communication a copy of a pamphlet entitled, “The Woolen Tariff Defended and Explained by the Na- tional Association of Wool Manufacturers,” in response to a circular of Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the 'Treasury, of July 18, 1885. We send you that document, with the earnest request that you would carefully read and consider it, in the hope that we may have yonr active and personal cooperation in the object for which it was written, viz : preserving the foundation rock of our prosperity as wool manufacturers, the present woolen tariff. The circular of Secretary Manning, and other information of which we are possessed, place it beyond question that it is the purpose of the Administration to bring its powerful influence to bear upon Congress for a general revision of the tariff, and the scheme of Secretary Manning, especially, involves the destruction of the system of compound duties, the indispensable defense of the woolen manufacture, as fully set forth in the document referred to. We are aware that there is a difference of opinion among wool manufacturers as to desirableness of a duty upon wool. Waiving that question, as we have in the response to Secretary Manning, and assuming that the continuance of a wool duty for the present is a political necessity, we presume that every intelligent wool manufacturer in the country will admit that the principle of the existing woolen tariff — a compen- satory duty for the raw material and a further protective duty — is the best system that can be devised. I bis system is now in deadly peril. Nothing can save it but the individual efforts of the manufacturers whose interests are imperiled. We ought to be able to present to Congress at least a thousand individual protests against a change of the existing system. We ask you, therefore, if you can consistently do so after reading the document above referred to, to express yonr approval of the following propositions : First. That there should be no change at present in the existing wool and woolen tariff, nor any general revision of the tariff at the next session of Congress. Second. That, in case of any revision of the tariff, so long as a duty is 'imposed upon wool, it is indispensable for the prosperity of tbe woolen manufacture that the present system of compound duties be strictly maintained. To make your opinion effective, we earnestly request you to sign the two inclosed papers embodying these propositions, and to inclose one to the secretary of this as- sociation, according to the address on the inclosed envelope, and the other to the Sec- retary of the Treasury, although a personal manuscript letter to the Secretary of the Treasury to the same effect would be better. As we cannot doubt that your practical experience must lead you to agree to the above proposition, we would urge upon you the importance of making your views known by letter or personal communication to the representative of your district in Congress. In behalf of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers. WILLIAM WHITMAN, Prisident. JOHN L. HAYES, Secretary. N. B. — If you approve of the inclosures, please transmit them at once. Printed letters, responsive to the above, in form similar to the follow- ing, have been received by the Department from the individuals, firms, and corporations named below. These will be transmitted separately to Congress. Cohoes, November 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Wasliinyton, D. C. : Sir : The undersigned, manufacturer of knit underwear at Cohoes, in the county of Albany, and State of New York, employing eighteen sets of machinery, hereby declare my approval of the policy, in relatiou to a, revision of the tariff, set forth by the. Na- tional Association of Wool Man ufa.e ‘u tors, in response to a circular of Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, of July Id, lddo. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 381 The features of the policy set forth in thatresponse which I especially approve are: First. That there shall be no change at present in the existing wool and woolen tariff, nor a general tariff revision dt the next session of Congress. • Second. That in case of any revision of the tariff, so long as a duty is imposed upon wool, it is indispensable for the prosperity of the woolen manufacture that the present system of compound duties upon woolens should be strictly maintained. Respectfully, yours, ANDREW J. ROOT, Treasurer Root Manufacturing Company. Name. Place. Name. Place. J. G. Linbach & Co Jonathan King & Son M. Halfpenny & Co Coulter, Rogers & Co J. F. Rich & Son W. F. Rumberger & Son . . . Leopold Seekinger J. Randall & Bros Folwell Brothers & Co Todd Brothers James Pollock & Son Daniel Bremer William H. Pope & Son Craven & Darnley Gundy Brothers & Co W. E. Montague William S. Morgan William Emsley & Bro John Wilson & Co J. S. Ingham James Lees & Sons Johnstown Manufacturing Company. Hugh Kennorthy John Bardsly & Co J oshua, Peirce & Co Muehling, IJlmer & Johnson James & George Bromley.. B. Hamhill & Co McCallum, Crease & Sloan. Samuel M. McClure John E Hariferd & Co Jasper Shoemaker Erben, Search & Co John Bromley Sons H. Holmes Shaw, Stein & Sons.. John N. Kantner William Arrott & Co K. F. Winner D. & W. King Pennsylvania Woolen Com- pany. Homer Brothers S. B. B. W. Fleisher Clark & Keen J. Dalton & Bros Charles Spencer & Co A. J. Brumbach James & Davenport Campleno & Elliott Philip Schum, Son & Co . . . Williams Brothers W. A. Stevenson James Wright John Flemming & Sons L. D. Yanney Dunkirk Knitting Mills Hanower & Austin Jones, Lewis & Thomas ... Swits Conde James Allen Saxony Knitting Company. E. Dole & Co Troy Blanket Mills S. S. Smith Reading, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Lewisburg, Pa. Muncy, Pa. Chatham, Pa. Craigsville, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Germantown, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. New Bethlehem, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. New Lebanon, Pa. Gelatt, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Bristol, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Quemahoning, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Academy Corners, Pa Bridgeport, Pa. Johnstown, Pa. Coatesville, Pa. Germantown, Pa. Bristol, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Germantown, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Brooklyn, N. Y. Philadelphia, Pa. Dalton, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Do. Do. Somerset, Pa. Derby, Pa. Pleasant Mount, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Germantown, Pa. Reading, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Lancaster, Pa. Rome, Pa. Carmichaels, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Yonkers, N. Y. Ephratah, N. Y. Dunkirk, N. Y. Amsterdam, N. Y. | West Eaton, N. Y. Oswego, N. Y. Philmont, N. Y. I Little Falls, N. Y. Cramptonville, N. Y.[ Troy, N. Y. Saint Johnsville^.Y 1 Scar Knitting Company T. & W. Yandemark & Mit- chell. James Aken James Roy & Co Church, Wright & Congee. Beaverwyck Mills Orange Cio. Woolen Mills . . Greene Knitting Company. Ranken Knitting Company. H. Waterbury & Sons Edwin Farrow Smith & Wilson C. A. Lull N. Y. Moris & Son Jamestown Worsted Mills Troy Manufacturing Co J. J. Joslin Riverside Knitting Mills . . . Cornelius N. Bliss W. A. Hardee John P. Doane Newman & Adams Harris Manufacturing Com- pany. Allen Preston & Co Morris Mark Hathaway & Roynolds James Taylor Walter F. Keefer Globe Woolen Co McLaclilan, Conde &. Co . . . Armstrong, Baker & Co G. M. Rockwells & Co William Moore W. A. Harder Nelson Miller Herkimer Knitting Mills . . . Charles Dawson Merchants’ Woolen Com- pany. Norfolk Mills P. E. Wall, agent Globe Yarn Mills A. E. Smith S. Blackinton Woolen Com- pany. Abbott & Co. Assabet Manufacturing Company. J. R. Scott & Co Kingston Knitting Com- pany. Stephen P. Day Niantic Hosiery Company . Albert E. Parish Pierre Ryan Richard Sayles & Co James A. Stevens & Co John Walsh & Sons William E. Hayward & Co. Sol. F. Cushman James Dugdale Andrew Howarth & Son... Hamilton Woolen Company Hamilton Woolen Company Troy, N. Y. Brookton, N. Y. Philmont, N. Y. West Troy, N. Y. Wegatchie, N. Y. Sand Lake, N. Y. Newburgh, N. Y. Amsterdam, N. Y. Cohoes, N. Y. Oriskany, N. Y. Mechanicsville, N. Y. Arcade, N. Y. Brookton, N. Y. Amsterdam, N. Y. Jamestown, N. Y. Cohoes, N. Y. Schaghticoke, N. Y. Cohoes, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Troy, N. Y. Phoenix Mills, N. Y. Cohoes, N. Y. Catskill, N. Y. Jamestown, N. Y. Herkimer, N. Y. Oriskany Falls, N. Y. Newburgh, N. Y. Camillus, N. Y. Utica, N. Y. Schenectady, N. Y. New Hartford, N. Y. Dryden, N. Y. Cohoes, N. Y. Troy, N. Y. Amsterdam, N. Y. Herkimer, N. Y. Holden, Mass. Boston, Mass. Dedham, Mass. Hampden, Mass. Fall River, Mass. C berry V all ey, Mass. No Adams, Mass. Graniteville, Mass. Boston, Mass. Uxbridge, Mass. Boston, Mass. Rowe, Mass. Boston, Mass. Hinsdale, Mass,. Holden, Mass. Uxbridge, Mass. Ware, Mass. Lowell, Mass. East Douglas, Mass. Monson, Mass. Lowell, Mass. Oxford, Mass. Amesbury, Mass. Southbridge, Mass. 332 REPOKT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Name. Place. Name. Place. Jolm Ken worthy B. W. Gleason & Son Talbot Mills L. Pomroys’ Sons Howe & Jefferson Fitchburg Worsted Com- pany. George Whitney P. Scott & Son Alexander Lyons Way & Kimball Saxonville Mills Wicks Manufacturing Company. J. L. Peck Beebe. Webber & Co Nonantum Worsted Com- pany. N. E. Bunting Co B. M. & Theo. Reynolds ,1 ohn F. Heesy & Bro James Phillips George P. Ladd Fair Alpaca Company Arlington Mills ' Manchester Mills George H. Gilbert E. D. Thayer, jr John Chase & Son Oriental Worsted Mills C. A. & S. M. Wheelock. . . . Aetna Mills Bays Woolen Company E. W. Chapin & Co Otter River Company City Mills Company AVilliam James Hogg ...... Conrides South worth Edward M Rockwell J. P. Bradley W . C. Harding & Co Hockanum Company Sayles & Washburn The Sabin L. Sayles Com- pany. The New England Company B. F. Schofield T. E. Hopkins Theo. Bird & Co Kenyon Brothers E. E'. Hilliard & Co L. M. Heery & Co Medlicott Company The Rock Manufacturing Company. Hartford Carpet Company XT nion Manufacturing C om- pany. Warren Woolen Company . River Mills Hope Company Meriden Woolen Mills Mystic Woolen Mills Home Company Glastonbury Knitting Com- pany. Putnam Woolen Company. Somersville Manufactur- ing Company. * The Riverside Woolen Companv. A. L. Clark Phoenix Woolen Company . The Lounsburg and Bis- sell Company. Charles F. Sweet A. H. & B. Ailing James Legg & Co Hampden, Mass. Rock Bottom, Mass. Billerica, Mass. Pittsfield, Mass. Jeffersonville, Mass. Fitchburg, Mass. South Royalston, Mass. Saugus, Mass. Highlandville, Mass. South Walpole, Mass. Boston, Mass. Worcester, Mass. Pittsfield, Mass. Holyoke, Mass. Boston, Mass. Lowell, Mass. Monson, Mass. Do. Fitchburg, Mass. Spencer, Mass. Holyoke. Mass. Boston, Mass. Do. Ware, Mass. Leicester, Mass. Webster, Mass. Millsville, Mass. TJxbriilge, Mass. Watertown, Mass. North Billingham, Mass. Northborough, Mass. Templeton, Mass. Norfolk, Mass Worcester, Mass. Stoughton, Mass. Leominster, Mass. Ballardvale, Mass. Stamford, Conn. Rockville, Conn. Mechanicsville,Conn. Killingly, Conn. Rockville, Conn. Montville, Conn. Danielsonville, Conn. Bethlehem, Conn. Woodstock, Conn. Manchester, Conn. Versailles, Conn. Windsor Locks, Conn. Rockville, Conn. Thompsonville, Conn. Torrington, Conn. Stafford Springs, Conn. • Do. Staffordville, Conn. Meriden, Conn. Mystic, Conn. Staffordville, Conn. Glastonbury, Conn. Putnam, Conn. Somersville, Conn. Stafford, Conn. Manchester, Conn. Stafford, Conn. Wiunipauk, Conn. Hartford, Conn. Birmingham, Conn. Pascoag, R. I. Sayles & Nichols J. T. Frisbey, jr William A. Inman Whipple & Wailing William Tinkum Company J. O. Inman Westerly Woolen Company W. R. Wells W. A. Walton & Co Richard Howard & Son Glendale Woolen Company . Peter Gillevan D. Goff & Sons Perseverance Worsted Company. Kent Woolen Company William Gregory Phoenix Woolen Company . George H. Tyler & Co Valley Worsted Mills Perce Brothers Providence Worsted Mills . Sawyer Woolen Mills Tilton & Goodall John Collins Dexter Richards & Sons E. H. Pearson Frank P. Holt Gonic Manufacturing Com- pany. E. S. Harris George L. Balcom A. P. Olzender Concord Manufacturing Company. Contoocook Mills Company. Sam Hodgson H. Bailey Wolf borough Mills Kennidy & Miller Manu- facturing Company. Haile & Frost Manufac- turing Company. Hillsborough Woolen Mill Company. Samuel N. Pay son E. Colvin & Son Burlington Woolen Com- pany. Ottapuchu Woolen Com- pany. William Dillon Hayward, Taft & Co Gaysville Manufacturing Company. Isaac L. Pearl & Co J. Gould &. Son F. L. Mackenzie H. E. Bradford & Co George Rockwood & Co ... Bound Brook Woolen Mills. Passaic Woolen Company . Norfolk and New Bruns- wick Hosiery Company. Dundee Woolen Company . Somerset Manufacturing Company. Radian Woolen Mills Elkhart Knitting Company W. A. Hedden & Co Moorhouse Bros Seymour Woolen Factory Company. New Albany Woolen Mills Goshen Woolen Mills Com- pany. Wyman & Marks W. Test & Bro King & Fildes Pascoag, R. I. Do. Do. Do. Do. Westerly, R. I. Asha way, R. I. Richmond Switch, R. I. Apponaug, R. I. Glendale, R. I. Mohegan, R. I. Pawtucket, R. I. Woonsocket, R. I. Centreville, R. I. Wickford, R. I. East Greenwich, R. I. Washington, R. I. Providence, R. I. Phenix, R. I. Providence, R. I. Dover, N. H. Littleton, N. H. Gibson, N. H. Newport, N. H. Epping, N. H. Laconia, N. H. Gonic, N. H. Penacook, N. H. Claremont, N. H. Manchester, N. H. West Concord, N. H. Hillsborough Bridge, N. H. Meredith Village, N. H. Claremont, N. H. South Wolf borough, N. H. Portsmouth, N. H. Hinsdale, N. H. Hillsboro’ Bridge, N. H. Goff’s Falls, N. H. Pawlet, Vt. Winooski, Vt. North Hartland, Vt. Springfield, Vt. Proctorsville, Vt. Gaysville, Vt. Johnson, Vt. Gouldsville, Vt. Bridgewater, Vt. Bennington, Vt. Do. Bound Brook, N J. Passaic, N. J. New Brunswick, N. J. Passaic, N. J. Raritan, N. J. Do. Elkhart, Ind. N ew Albany, Ind. Blairsville, Ind. Seymour, Ind. New Albany, Ind. Goshen, Ind. Wabash, Ind. Richmond. Ind. La Porte, Ind. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 333 Name. Place. Name. Place. Amazon Hoisery Company. Peru Woolen Mills Beatty & Co Danville Woolen Mills L. G. McCulloh Lacon Woolen Manufact- uring Company. American Woolen Com- pany. Rushville Shawl Mills Grieves, Halsey & Co A. H. Baker & Co Springfield Woolen Mills . . Joseph C. Eveleth ... Lewis, Anderson & Co Robert Dobson & Co Sanford Mills Knox Woolen Company . . . Newichawanich Company Madison Woolen Company. Brown Manufacturing Com- pany. Pondicherry Company Mayo & Son Cascade Woolen Company. J . W. & C. W. Springfield . . D. Cowan & Co The Yassalborough Woolen Mills. Sanford Mills Piscataquis Woolen Mills . W. T. Parkam Robert Eastwood Allen Wright N ational Knitting Company W. P. Hewitt & Co The Woolen Manufactur- ing Company. Monticello Woolen Com- Michigan City, Ind. Peru, Ind. Mishawaka, Ind. Danville, 111. Kankakee, 111. Lacon, 111. Barry, 111. Rushville, HI. Lacon, 111. Fairfield, 111. Springfield, HI. Hampden, Me. Skowhegan, Me. Pittsfield, Me. Sanford, Me. Camden, Me. South Berwick, Me. Madison, Me. Dover, Me. Bridgeton, Me. Foxcroft, Me. Oakland, Me. Alfred, Me. Lewiston, Me. North Y assalbor- ough, Me. Sanford, Me. Guilford, Me. Maryville, Tenn. Conyersville, Tenn. Dowelltown, Tenn. Milwaukee, Wis. Menasha, Wis. Beaver Dam, Wis. Monroe, Wis. pany. Island Woolen Company . . Cedarburg Woolen Mills . . . Blake & Co . Genesee Woolen Mills Jefferson Woolen Mills R. A. Patton Maysville Woolen Mills ... Walter, Feltner & Co The Barnsville Manufact- uring Company. The Branceton Mills James Tonge Jonesville Woolen Mills . . . Clark Bros Vassar Woolen Company. . La Grange Knitting Mills . Franklin Fisher Adler & Co Saint Mary Woolen Man- ufacturing Company. Lockland Woolen Mills . . The F. Gray Company Backus & Kingsley Joseph & J. W. Gledhill . . . Henry Fox & Co L. Richardson & Co Eclipse Woolen Mills Missouri Woolen Mills William Ziock The Buell Manufacturing Company. George Boomer W an ensburg Woolen Mills Cain Bros. & Hutchinson .. Davenport Woolen Mills . . P. N. & N. E. Woods C. H. Lewis Holstein Woolen Mills Kiamensi W oolen Company M. Bettinger Provo Manufacturing Com- pany. Baraboo, Wis. Cedarburg, Wis. Racine, Wis. Genesee, Wis. Jefferson, Wis. Second Creek, W. Ya. Maysville, W. Ya. Webster, W. Ya. Barnsville, W. Ya. Branceton, W. Ya. Salem, W. Ya. Jonesville, Mich. Lowell, Mich. Yassar, Mich. La Grange, Mich. Shanesville, Ohio. Cincinnati, Ohio. Saint Mary’s Ohio. Lockland, Ohio. Piqua, Ohio. New Bremen, Ohio. Ravenna, Ohio. Hrbana, Ohio. Louisville, Ky. Do. Carthage, Mo. Saint Charles, Mo. Saint Joseph, Mo. Mexico, Mo. W arrensburg, Mo. Sedalia, Mo. Davenport, Iowa. Fairfield, Iowa. Good sen, Ya. Holstein Mills, Ya. Stanton, Del. Tell City, Md. Provo City, Utah. Edmund Buckley L. Farr & Son Oregon City Manufactur- ing Company. Ashland Woolen Mills New Braunfels Woolen Mills. Macon Knitting Company . C.R. Brown S. Haight & Co Hutchinson & Ogden E. L. Barber Edward Clegg Thompson Brothers C. H. Amsbry Zerby & Webb John F. Lodge William Curry Joseph Haigti & Son Samuel Bryrom James Kitcheman John McArthur Thomas Jaggers Alexander Crow & Son Beaver Mills (limited) John Blood & Co Wm. W. Whitaker & Sons . Samuel Byrom L. R. Heathcote & Co John S. Bryan Thomas Clarkson Youngman Bros Daniel Artrnan Jos. E. Noble Osier & Fleming Ross & Pryor William Thornton Sami. B. Hilliei^ Ivins. Dietz &Magee S. C.. Jtedpath J ames Bole Joel Brierley Newsame & Fawcett Booth & Bro Hughes & Kay William Scholes & Son John McClain Harvey Lamb Berwick & Kay N. F. Gibbony Wm. B. Taylor & Son William Johnson S. Lawton & Co John Sutliff Forbis Bros Spr in gfield W oolen Mill Co. A. J. Williams O wings & Wattenberger. . . Marcella Falls W oolen Mills B. F. Stephens & Bro Jackson Woolen Manufact- uring Company. Home Woolen Company . . . J. S. McElhoes M. M. Nulty & Bros Parker Bowman & Co J. Chapman Badger Knitting Company. Carolina Mills Company. . . Blackstone Woolen Com- Brigham City, Utah. Ogden City, Utah. Oregon City, Or eg. Ashland, Oreg. New Braunfels, Tex. Macon, Ga. Greenville, Pa. Bridgewater, Pa. Manayunk, Pa. Bridgeport, Pa. Nicetown, Pa. Milroy, Pa. Camptown, Pa. Allensville, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Slippery Rock, Pa. Le Raysville, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Norristown, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. ' Do. Downingtowo, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Do. Glen Rock, Pa. Hughsville, Pa. Faliston, Pa. Antes Fort, Pa. Larry’s Creek, Pa. Waterside, Pa. Forksville, Pa. Clarksville, Pa. Albion, Pa. Cooperstown, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Do. Germantown, Pa. Brookville, Pa. Roseylin, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Do. Washington, Pa. Spartan sburgh, Pa. Philadelphia, Pa. Belleville, Pa. Lewiston, Md. Bay Yiew, Md. Oakland, Md. Yates, Mo. Do. Springfield, Mo. Glenwood, Mo. Post Oak Springs, Tenn. Columbia, Tean. Greene ville, Tenn. Jackson, Tenn. Home, Tenn. Kelly sburg, Tenn. Bristol, Tenn. Buchanan, W. Ya. Watertown, Wis. Milwaukee, Wis. Carolina, R. I. Waterford, R. I. pany. Haines Woolen Company. . British Hosiery Company. . Lymansville Company. . . Bradford Manufacturing Company. Rodman Manufac t u r i n g Company. Hudsfelt & Smith Potter, James &Co ... Woonsocket, R. T. Thornton, R. I. North Providence, R.I. Woonsocket, R. I. La Fayette, R. I. Mayfield, Ky. Bowling Green, Ky. 334 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; Uame. Place. name. Place. Reynolds & Taylor Joshua Woodh’ead Louisville Woolen Mills James Cato Beargrass Woolen Mills . . . George Merritt & Co J. S. Scott Eagle Knitting Company . . G.F. Ellis Birch & Brother R. S. Glass & Co Eel River Woolen Mill Company. John Allen & Co J. P. Wigal & Co Ward and Snvder S. B. Harris . Shuler and Benninghofer . . Dodd Brothers J. & H. Clasgens John Corbett William McElroy Wright & Thomas Dennis Clark J. S. Ellifritz & Co Bush & McVay William Rutledge T. A. Culbartson Humming Woolen Mills... J. E. Lenii J. E. Tritsch Dennison Walker Saco River Woolen Com- pany. Archibald Linn Harper Manufacturing Company. Robinson Manufacturing Company. D. H. Bufiin’s Sons North Berwick Company . . J. L. H. Cobb & Co J. W. Bresiel & Co A. M. Dodge .• A. S. Ballantyne A. H. Norris & Co John Fletcher Great Falls Woolen Com- pany. N. G. Johnson Gilsum Woolen Manufact- uring Company. J. Radcliffe & Son Daniel Curtiss’ Sons Joseph Mullen, agent Crosby Manufacturing Company. Broad Brook Company Peel & Swindelle - Benjamin F. Taylor Hill Knitting Company New Britain Knitting Com- Glasgow, Ky. Falmouth, Ky. Louisville, Ky. Ramsey, Ky. Louisville, Ky. Indianapolis, Ind. Ontario, Ind. Elkhart, Ind. Terre Haute, Ind. Greencastle, Ind. Columbia Citv, Ind. Do. Michigan City, Ind. Quincy, Ind. Monticello. Ind. Ellettsville, Ind. Hamilton, Ohio. Willoughby, Ohio. New Richmond, Ohio. Bellville, Ohio. Mohicanville, Ohio. Springborough, Ohio. London, Ohio. Hillsborough, Ohio. Caldwell, Ohio. West Milton, Ohio. Greenville, Ohio. Celina, Ohio. Wilmot, Ohio. Logan, Ohio. Pittsfield, Me. West Buxton, Me. Hartland, Me. Welchville, Me. Oxford, Me. Acton, Me. North Berwick, Me. Lewiston, Me. Laconia, N. H. Tilton, N. H. Do. Epping, N. H. Tilton, N. H. Great Falls, N. H. Wilmot, N. H. Gilsum, N. H. Long Hill, Conn. Woodbury, Conn. Stafford Springs, Conn. East Glastonbury, Conn. Broad Brook, Conn. Stafford, Conn. Norwalk, Conn.. Ansonia, Conn. New Britain, Conn. panv. Winsted Hosiery Company. Greenmanville Manufactur- ing Company. Ambrose Reynolds Talcott Bros Union Woolen Company. .. Joseph W. Bentley Bristol Manufacturing Company. C. F. Schofield Union Manufacturing Company. James K. Kegan Solomon, Barber & Co Winsted, Conn. Mystic Bridge, Conn. Greenville, Conn. Talcottville, Conn. HotcMdssville, Conn. Huntington, Conn. Bristol, Conn. Montville, Conn. Norwalk, Conn. Rockville, Conn. Laurel Glenn, Conn. J. M. Wood John Cochrane, jr Merrimack Woolen Mills.. United States Bunting Company. Minot Manufacturing Com- pany. Dudley Hosiery Company. Wm. Carter & Co Frederick Ayer George C. Moore Edgeworth Mill Nathaniel E. Taft E. Shaw Aken & Taylor Hinsdale Brothers Evans, Segrave & Co Josiah Perry French resent for your consideration tlie fol- lowing facts in regard to the duties on salt : Being unable at this early date to ascertain the exact information as to receipts and other necessary data for the year just ending (1882), we are forced to take that of the previous year, which, being fully compiled, is therefore on record and is available. The total consumption of salt in the United States during 1881, was 3,300,000,000 pounds, less than one-third of which, say 1,074,827,800 pounds, was foreign salt, of which 941,803,333 pounds paid duty to the Government, amounting to $918,437.7H. The balance of the foreign salt imported that year, amounting to 133,024,477 pounds, paid no revenue to the Government, it having been withdrawn from bond, in accord- ance with act passed July 28, 1866, which act provides that all salt used in the cur- ing of fish shallhe exempt from duty. This discrimination is only made at a few 346 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ports in the Eastern (or New England) States, where vessels are regularly licensed in the fishing trade. The salt, however, is consumed in the States, as the fish are generally or always cured ashore; but it maybe stated that much of the fish thus cured is sent to a foreign market, where it competes with similar productions of those countries. The same argument can be advanced in favor of (those who pay the duty on salt) the people of the balance of our country, for in the West and South large quantities of pork, beef, and other products are annually cured with salt and sent to foreign coun- tries for a market, and are sold in competition with similar articles of those countries. Why, therefore, should the products of one section of the country be thus discrimi- nated against and that of another section encouraged and protected? Is this equity? Is it justice ? The remedy is either to rescind act of July 28, 1866, or, better still, to put salt on the free list, where it justly and truly belongs, for it is an article not of luxury, but one of prime necessity, being used for family and domestic purposes by each and every one of our 50,000,000 inhabitants. It is the preserver and purifier of all things, without a rival or substitute. Stand- ing alone amidst the productions of nature, pure in itself, it is an antidote to all ma- terial corruption. Like the other necessaries of life, air and water, salt is universally diffused and in- exhaustibly supplied. The waters of our ocean hold it in solution. In numerous places streams of saline waters emerge from the bowels of our earth from everlasting springs, or are easily reached by wells. It is found in solid masses in the depfhs of our earth. Such is the bountiful supply of this prime necessary of life, that its pro- duction is cheap and easy. Why, then, levy this odious, heartless, and tyrannical tax upon man and beast ? Falling, as it does, with its greatest weight upon the most helpless, it is a tax no economy could avoid, no poverty shun, no privation escape. The cost of manufacturing salt in the United States is but little if any more than in England. For instance, in the State of Michigan, producing more than 50 per cent, of that consumed of the domestic article in the United States, the salt wells and works are located on the shores of navigable waters, thus having the advantage of cheap transportation and easy access to the best salt market in this country. These wells are all worked in connection with saw-mills, the greatest economy being practiced. Power is furnished by the same engine which runs the mill ; for fuel, refuse slabs and sawdust is used, and the barrels are made from rejected lumber and slabs. Thus it can be readily seen that the cost of production and transportation to market must be extremely small. On the other hand, the bulk of foreign salt used in this country comes from England, and is known as Liverpool salt. It is made in the interior of Euglaud, and brought to the seaboard in lighters at a heavy expense. It must then cross the ocean and take all the chances of loss of time and shrinkage. To the origi- nal cost is added what should be called the export tax, hut which is known as port dues, bank and other commissions ; then come marine insurance and a heavy ocean freight. It would seem that the great difference in cost, as shown above, particu- larly in the items of ocean freight and marine insurance, would prove a sufficient dis- crimination against foreign salt. Such, however, is not the case; for we find that Congress has seen fit to keep what might well he called- a heavy war tax on salt. The duty is now 12 cents per hundred pounds on salt imported in sacks and 8 cents per hundred pounds for that brought in bulk. This specific tax is equal to an ad valorem duty of 60 per cent, and which is almost prohibitory, as the very small rev- enue of $918,437.78 clearly indicates. It is not unlikely that nearly all, or quite all, of said revenue is lost to the Government in payment of salaries of bonded ware- house superintendents and their assistants, clerks, weighers, and laborers, who, with the abolition of this tax might largely or entirely be dispensed with. This is not all, for besides the fact that the Government will lose but little if any of its present revenue by placing salt, where in accordance with justice and equity it truly belongs, on the free list, there would also be a saving to the great mass of the people ; for it must not be forgotten that the manufacturer of the domestic article does, as a rule, add to the price his product would sell for were it not protected by heavy tariff (which, owing to the advantages already enumerated, should still leave a handsome profit), an amount about equal to that assessed by the Government on the foreign article. Thus we find that the people have to pay not only $918,437.78 taxed on all foreign salt for the benefit of the Government, but that there are over $2,000,000 additional (making nearly $3,000,000 in all) extorted from the consumer, which goes direct into the pockets of the few who manufacture the domestic article. These few monopolists, according to reliable data, do not employ over 4,200 men in their estab- lishments. Therefore, we again ask, where is the justice in taxing nearly 50,000,000 of people in the interests of a few wealthy monopolists, who employ such a small num- ber of laborers, and to whom they pay an average of not over $310 each per annum ? The duties on salt cannot therefore be classed as a protection to American labor, but should be denominated as a tax in the interests of and for the direct benefit of a few wealthy monopolists. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 347 To show the use these few favored capitalists who own or control the salt works in the United States make of the protection granted them by the representatives of a patient people and how little they need protection, it is asserted by a standard . thority that the Onondago Salt Company of Syracuse, N- Y., have issued their price- list, offering to lay down salt, freight prepaid by the company, at various points along the Grand Trunk Railroad in Canada at a price much less per barrel than any citi- zen could buy the same article for in Syracuse. By placing salt on the free list ocean freights on American products would be greatly reduced, for as it is now, such ship- ments have to stand the heavy expense of the round trip. Steamers and ships coming this way would no longer be forced to come, as many of them do now, in purchased ballast, which is a total loss, as it is thrown away on arrival on this side ; but instead could bring a load of salt, which, as the latter always pays freight, would materially assist in a reduction as above stated. Thus we would be enabled to greatly enlarge our foreign commerce by securing a wider market abroad for all the staple articles, a large surplus of which in ordinary times we produce. To sell abroad we must also buy. The annual revenue on salt to the Government is, as is well known, quite small and will certainly be growing less each year, and as it is not a luxury but an absolute necessity, being more generally used than any other article now on the tariff, we re- spectfully suggest that the placing of it on the free list would be more beneficial to all the people of this great country than any other change that can be made in the present tariff'. Respectfully submitted. JACKSON & KILPATRICK, Importers, Exporters, and Dealers, and Agents. Saint Louis Canning Company, Packers of Beef and Pork. [The American Iron and Steel Association, tariff revision .] Philadelphia, November 10, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: This association has already acknowledged the receipt of your circular letter, dated July 17, 1885, in relation to the collection of infor- mation concerning customs duties on foreign products; also your per- sonal communication of the 21st of the same month, requesting the co- operation of the association in collecting so much of this information as is desired from the iron and steel manufacturers of the country. In our replies to the communications referred to we have expressed our entire willingness to aid in the collection of information from these manufact- urers. At the same time we expressed the opinion that the value of our work would he impaired if the Department should also address its in- quiries directly to individual manufacturers. We now regret to say that the information we have obtained is # not so full or so comprehensive as we have desired that it should be. The American Iron and Steel Association embraced on the 1st of Jan- uary of the present year 171 companies, 77 firms, and 22 individuals, or a total of 270 members. This membership was directly identified with the manufacture of iron and steel in every form in every State of the. Union that contains an iron or steel industry. Besides this absolute membership the association regularly corresponds with all other iron and steel manufacturers in the United States. Suitable interrogatories were promptly prepared, and application for the desired information was made early in August last to all iron and steel manufacturers. (In the phrase “iron and steel manufacturers” we include the owners or operators of blast furuances, rolling-mills, and steel works, and the producers of hammered iron blooms.) Early in Sep- tember we again addressed all manufacturers who had not responded to our first communication. Copies of the interrogatories referred to and 348 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. of the circular letters accompanying them were promptly transmitted to the Treasury Department. Of the more than five hundred and fifty companies, firms, and individuals addressed by the association less than one-fourth have responded in writing; of this number several have re- fused to give any information whatever and many others have given very imperfect information. Some have doubtless addressed the De- partment directly, and we understand that replies will also be made by a few organizations representing special iron or steel interests. Of the large number who have not formally responded to the interrogatories of the association many have personally given reasons for not respond- ing which were similar to those assigned by others in writing. This unwillingness or refusal to respond to a call for information from the officers of this association is an experience to which we are entirely un- accustomed. The inquiry naturally suggests itself, why has the information been withheld by so many manufacturers ? Various reasons for this action may be assigned. Many manufacturers do not keep their accounts with sufficient minuteness to enable them to give the information requested ; others naturally shrink from exposing the details of their business to any person, fearing that they might even by accident be seen by their rivals ; others do not care to take the trouble to compile the details; others believe that the details if 'given would fall into the hands of Government officials who are not experts, and who would, therefore, be liable to misunderstand or misconstrue them; while others again de- cline to give information because they are earnestly opposed to any fur- ther revision of the tariff, and think that if they would give the details requested they would thereby be committing themselves to the sup port of a policy which they do not believe in. Whether or not all these reasons can be accepted as satisfactory we must respect the book- keeping difficulties, the earnest convictions, and even the timidity of business men who represent large interests and have much at stake. THE CIRCULAR LETTER CONSIDERED. The circular letter from the Department to manufacturers deals with two important subjects: first, the question of substituting specific for ad valorem duties as a remedy for frauds on the revenue, and, second, the comparative cost of production of manufactured articles in this country and in other countries. In connection with the first of these subjects suggestions are requested concerning the feasibility of simplifying the tariff by the general substitution of specific rates of duty. We will consider these subjects in order. SPECIFIC AND AD VALOREM DUTIES. The Department’s circular letter says : u Investigations of the meth- ods of entry and appraisement of imported merchandise have shown that the tariff laws are largely evaded by undervaluation wherever the duties are levied ad valorem. A remedy suggested for this evil is the adoption of specilic duties.” We give our hearty assent to this remedy so far as its adoption is possible without detriment to the revenues of the Government or injury to domestic industries. Specific duties are certain, constant, and easily ascertained ; ad valorem duties are uncer- tain, variable, fruitful of controversy, and exceedingly liable to fraudu- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 349 lent evasiori. One very common method of evasion was clearly ex- plained by the New York Times in its issue for September 25, 1885. A concern in France, for instance, may ship a lot of goods to its representative here. The goods may be of a special quality to which no common standard of value can be applied by the appraiser. Under such circumstances it is not easy for the appraiser to get at the real value. Frequently in instances of this kind the invoices are made out at a very low figure to enable the consignee to evade the payment of the full amount of duties that would be imposed on an honest valuation. This systematic un- dervaluation not only cheats the Government, hut it is rapidly driving the domestic importer r to tbe wall. The latter, not being in collusion with the foreign manufact- urer, of course gains no advantage. We note with pleasure the vigorous efforts that are now being made by the Treasury Department to check all undervaluations of foreign merchandise that is imported into the United States. As protectionists, anxious for the prosperity of our whole country and of all its industries, we are especially thankful that a policy has been adopted and adhered to in the management of our custom-houses that insists upon the full measure of protection for these industries that is contemplated by our tariff laws. Duties levied for protection as well as for revenue are of little avail as a shield against foreign competition if they are not strictly enforced. Many domestic industries have been credited with possess- ing a degree of protection which they have not really enjoyed because of the lax administration of the law which has been made possible by ad valorem duties. The British Government now levies only specific duties, with one exception, and for years before it abandoned protective duties its policy was largely the same. Our own conspicuously ad va- lorem tariffs of 1846 and 1857 had no precedent in the modern history of Great Britain. It must be added, however, that British duties, whether they have been specific or ad valorem, have always been most rigorously enforced. But ad valorem duties cannot be wholly dispensed with, even if the risk of undervaluations must continue. Injustice to the revenue, the domestic manufacturer, and the domestic consumer there are many ar- ticles which cannot wisely be subjected solely to specific duties. Gloves and hosiery, watches and jewelry, cutlery and fire-arms, ma- chinery, silks, velvets, and satins, clothing, cloths, and fine carpets, for instance, having varying values, could not properly be subjected to specific duties alone at so much per pound or per yard. Such articles must continue to be subjected to ad valorem duties, and some of them to both specific and ad valorem rates. The duties which are now imposed on iron and steel and manufactures thereof are chiefly specific. We do not recommend any change from specific to ad valorem rates in any of these duties. The few articles of iron and steel that are subject to ad valorem rates alone are as follows. The paragraphs are given as numbered in the indexed tariff of the Treasury Department : 148. Bar-iron, rolled or hammered, and all iron in slabs, blooms, loops, or other forms less finished than iron in bars, and more advanced than pig-iron, except cast- ings, shall pay a duty of thirty-five per centum ad valorem, whenever the specific rates provided for these articles would not yield this proportion of their invoice value. 151. Sheet iron thinner than number twenty-nine wire gauge, and all iron commer- cially known as common or black taggers iron, whether put up iu boxes or bundles, or not, thirty per centum ad valorem. 155. Iron and steel cotton-ties, or hoops for baling purposes, not thinner than num- ber twenty wire gauge, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 174. Circular saws, thirty per centum ad valorem. 175. Hand, back, and all other saws, not specially enumerated or provided for, forty per centum ad valorem. 177. Steel ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, and slabs, by whatever process made; die 350 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. blocksor blanks ; billetsand bars and tapered or beveled bars ; bands, hoops, strips, and sheets of all gauges and widths; plates of all thicknesses and widths; steamer, crank, and other shafts; wrist or crank pfns; connecting-rods and piston-rods; pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes, or blanks of sheet or plate steel, or combination of steel and iron, punched or not punched; hammer-moulds or swaged steel; gun-moulds, not in bars ; alloys used as substitutes for steel tools; all descriptions and shapes of dry sand, loam, or iron-moulded steel castings, all of the above classes, of steel not otherwise specially provided for, valued at four cents a pound or less, forty-five per centum ad valorem. 183. Steel, not specially enumerated or provided for, forty-five per centum ad'va - lorem. 197. Cutlery, not specially enumerated or provided for, thirty-five per centum ad va- lorem. 199. Steel plates, engraved, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 202. Muskets, rifles, and other fire-arms, not specially enumerated or provided for, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 203. All sporting breech-loading shot-guns, and pistols of all kinds, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 204. Forged shot-gun barrels, rough-bored, ten per centum ad valorem. 205. Needles for knitting or sewing machines, thirty -five per centum ad valorem. 206. Needles, sewing, darning, knitting, and all others not specially enumerated or provided for, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. 207. Pen-knives, pocket-knives, of all kinds, and razors, fifty per centum ad valorem ; swords, sword-blades, and side-arms, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. 208. Pen-holder tips and pen-holders, or parts thereof, thirty per centum ad valorem. 214. Chromate of iron, or chromic ore, fifteen per centum ad valorem. 215. Mineral substances in a crude state and metals unwrought, not specially enumerated or provided for, twenty per centum ad valorem. 216. Manufactures, articles, or wares, not specially enumerated or provided for, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, copper, lead, nickel, pewter, tin, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum. We do not suggest any changes in the rates of duty named in any of these paragraphs except in those numbered 151, 155, 177, and 183. Ad valorem rates in all these paragraphs except those named appear to us to be absolutely necessary to secure to the Government the reve- nue to which it is justly entitled and to guard the domestic manufact- urer against destructive foreign competition. The character of the articles mentioned in these paragraphs will show at a glance that duties levied by weight could not equitably to any interest be imposed on any of them. There remain then for our consideration the duties imposed in paragraphs 151, 155, 177, and 183. In paragraph No. 151 the duty on common or black sheet iron thin- ner than No. 29 wire gauge and on common or black taggers iron is stated to be 30 per cent, ad valorem. Experience has shown that this duty is too low to be protective of our sheet iron manufacturers who are prepared to manufacture the finer qualities of sheet iron and taggers iron, the latter being the thinnest sheet iron that is made. The duty is entirely out of harmony with the duties on thicker sheet iron. The thinner the sheet irou, the more labor is employed upon it and the more valuable it is ; hence the duty imposed upon it should be higher than on thicker sheet iron. But the duty of 30 per cent, on sheet iron thin- ner than No. 29 and on taggers iron is really much less than that which Congress has imposed on the thicker forms of sheet iron. The specific duty on sheet irou thicker than No. 29 ranges from 1.1 cents to 1J cents per pound. An examination of the Government statistics shows that in the fiscal year 1884, which was the first under the tariff of 1883, there were entered for immediate consumption, and withdrawn from ware- house 1,834 tons of taggers irou, valued at $119,759, the ad valorem duty upon which amounted to $35,927.70, or $19.G0 per ton, which is less than 1 cent per pound. In the same fiscal year 10 tons of sheet iron thinner than No. 29 were entered and withdrawn, valued at $717, upon REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 351 which an ad valorem duty of $215.10 was paid, or $21.51 per ton, which also is less than 1 cent per pound. The probability is that a large por- tion of the 1,834 tons of “taggers iron 77 was really sheet iron of sizes near to but thicker than No. 20, and it should therefore have paid a specific duty. It is no wonder that the manufacture of taggers non is not to day an American industry, and that the manufacture of thin sheet iron is a sickly industry. The duty on the thinnest forms of sheet iron up to taggers iron gauges, which begin with No. 36, should cer- tainly be as high as that on No. 25 to No. 29, which is is l£ cents per pound, while taggers iron should pay a still higher duty. In paragraph No. 155 the duty on cotton-ties is stated to be 35 per cent, ad valorem. This duty has been found to be inadequate for the protec- tion of our cotton-tie manufacturers, very few cotton- ties being now made in this country. In the fiscal year already referred to there were entered and withdrawn for consumption 16,182 tons of foreign-made cotton-ties, aggregating in value at the places of manufacture $540,240.57, and pay- ing a duty amounting to $189,190.78, or $11.70 per ton, which is but little more than one-half cent per pound. The inadequacy of the 35 per cent, ad valorem duty as a check to foreign competition is seen in the very large importations of the last few years, and its absurdity and in- justice will be made strikingly apparent when it is compared with the higher duties on bar-iron. Cotton-ties require very much more labor than bar-iron, and their cost is therefore much greater. The action of Congress in imposing an ad valorem rate which yields but little more than one-half cent per pound is one of those obvious errors in leg- islation which should be speedily corrected. Of course there is good ground for the suspicion that the foreign cost is undervalued. The duty should .be made specific, and should not be less than that which is charged on the smallest sizes of bar-iron, namely 1.1 cents per pound. In paragraph No. 177 the duty on various enumerated forms of steel, valued at 4 cents per pound or less, is stated to be 45 per cent, ad va- lorem. A valid objection to this duty is that it open's the door to under- valuations upon a large class of miscellaneous steel products. In the fiscal year 1884 there were entered and withdrawn from consumption, under the ad valorem rate of duty, 12,786 tons of steel bars and bil- lets. valued at $370,879, upon which the duty amounted to $167,470.76, or $13.10 per ton ; also 5,156 tons of steel ingots, blooms, and slabs, valued at $120,560, upon which the duty amounted to $54,252, or $10.52 per ton. The average duty collected on all these articles was a very small fraction more than one half cent per pound. There would ap- pear to be no sufficient check upon the obvious temptation to enter for duty steel worth 2 and 3 cents a pound at 1 cent or even less per pound. Apart from this consideration there is a manifest impropriety in subjecting steel valued at 4 cents per pound or less to an ad valorem duty which realizes only about one-half cent per pound, while steel valued above 4 cents per pound and less than 7 cents is made dutiable at 2 cents per pound. A classification of this kind is sure to invite fraud in entering steel in the 4-cent clause which should be in- voiced above 4 cents. The 45 per cent, ad valorem duty on steel valued at 4 cents per pound or less should be changed if possible to a specific duty approximating that which is imposed on steel valued above 4 cents. This would tend to prevent frauds and afford more adequate protection to domestic steel manufacturers. If it be objected that much of the steel that is imported under the 4% per cent, duty is worth very much less than 4 cents per pound, we reply that the cheapness of foreign products is the feature of foreign competition against which protective 352 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. duties are required. If duties are made sufficiently high to be ade- quately protective home competition may be depended upon to keep home prices within reasonable limits. In paragraph Ho. 183 the duty on steel not specially enumerated or provided for is also given at 45 per cent, ad valorem. This provision cannot be objected to per .se, but objection may property be made to its covering articles which should have been specifically enumerated. We mention one conspicuous illustration, namely, steel wire rods lighter than Ho. 5 wire gauge, and valued at 3J cents or less per pound. They are nowhere provided for by name, but both iron and steel wire rods above Ho. 5 are enumerated. Why should the finer and more valuable product be placed in an omnibus clause, and subjected to an ad valorem rate which may be evaded, while the coarser forms of the same article are carefully enumerated and subjected to a specific rate? Considerable quantities of wire rods lighter than Ho. 5 are imported, and although the Government does not advise us of the quantity and value of these importations, we are informed that the foreign invoice yields to the rev- enue about 111. 50 per ton, which is less than the duty of .6 cent per pound, or $13.44 per ton, which is imposed on the less valuable wire rods not lighter than Ho. 5. By making the duty .8 cent per pound on wire rods lighter than Ho. 5, and valued at 3J cents or less per pound, it would harmonize with that on the larger gauges, and our wire- rod manufacturers would not be subjected to unfair competition, of the injurious effects of which they justly complain. In dismissing that part of the circular letter which relates to the sub- stitution of specific for ad valorem duties we call special attention to the fact that, even if it were possible always to secure honest valuations, ad valorem duties do not afford protection to domestic manufacturers when it is most needed. When foreign products are entered at low prices ad valorem rates yield correspondingly low duties, and this hap- pens when the imported products by their cheapness most dangerously menace the home manufacture of like products. If pig-iron, for instance, were subject to an ad valorem rate of 50 per cent, the duty would be $5 ner ton when the foreign value is $10, and it would be $7.50 per ton when the foreign value is $15. It will readily be seen that the domestic manufacturer would need the $7.50 duty more when foreign pig-iron is $10 per ton than he would need $5 duty when it is $15 per ton. We believe, therefore, that, whenever it is practicable, and not positively injurious to any American interest, specific duties should be substituted for ad valorem rates. SPECIFIC DUTIES WHICH ARE TOO LOW. In this connection it seems proper that due consideration should also be given to certain specific duties in the metal schedule which are nom- inally imposed for the protection of domestic manufacturers, but which really protect only their foreign rivals. We allude to the duty of 1 cent per pound on tin plates, and to the duty of .6 cent per pound on iron and steel wire rods not lighter than Ho. 5. That these duties arc not adequately protective is shown by the most significant facts. This country does not manufacture one box of tin plates, Great Britain sup plying our entire demand. Our iron wire-rod industry is practically an extinct industry, Sweden and Germany now making nearly all the iron wire rods we need. Our steel wire-rod industry is subjected to the severest competition with the same industry in Germany and Great Britain. The following statement of our importations of tin plates and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 353 iron and steel wire rods in the fiscal year 1884 is compiled from theGovern- ment statistics, bat it must be borne in mind that more steel wire rods are imported than these figures indicate, owing to the grouping of rods lighter than No. 5 with “ steel not specially enumerated or provided for:” Articles. Gross tons. Value. Duty collected. Tin plates 235, 661 35, 839 50, 158 $18,931,072 70 1, 569, 397 52 1,812,957 71 $5, 278, 848 25 481, 671 04 674, 162 55 Iron wire rods Steel wire rods not lighter than If o. 5 The magnitude of the importations of tin plates is yet more signifi- cantly shown in the following table of the total importations and with- drawals from warehouse for consumption of iron and steel and iron ore in the fiscal year above mentioned : Articles. Value. Per cent, of whole value. Duty collected. Average, ad valorem. Tin plates $18, 931, 072 70 23, 986, 674 66 44 $5, 278, 848 25 9, 531, 213 07 27. 88 All other iron and steel 56 39. 69 Total 42, 917, 747 36 J00 14, 810, 061 32 34. 48 From this table it will be seen that 44 per cent, of the total importa- tions of iron and steel entered and withdrawn from warehouse for con- sumption in the fiscal year 1884' consisted of tin plates, the specific duty of 1 cent per pound on which was equivalent to about 28 per cent, of their foreign value. That the importations of tin plates in the fiscal year 1884 were not exceptionally large is shown by a further reference to the Government statistics. The importations of tin plates in the last five calendar years were as follows : Calendar years. Gross tons. Value. 1880 158,049 183, 005 213,987 221, 233 216, 181 $16, 478, 110 14, 886, 907 17, 975, 161 18, 156, 773 16, 858, 650 1881 1882 1883 1884 Total 992, 455 84, 355, 601 These figures show that in five years we have imported nearly a mill- ion tons of tin plates, for which we paid the British manufacturers nearly $85,000,000. If there had existed any necessity for this large importation, as in the case of articles that this country is not capable of producing, it's magnitude might be worthy of only a passing thought; but it is a most serious matter to send $17,000,000 annually out of the country to pay for an article which we could ourselves produce if the Government would foster its manufacture as it has fostered and is still fosteriug other useful industries. Tin plates are only sheet-iron or sheet-steel coated with tin, or with a mixture of tin and lead, and it will not be contended by any intelligent person that we could not make them as easily as they are made in England and Wales. Our skill as iron and steel manufacturers is equal to that of any other people; we produce our own lead, and we can obtain tin from the same countries which supply Great Britain. The only reason why we do not make the tin plates that we need is the insufficiency of the duty, which is not S. Ex. 72 23 354 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. equal to the difference in the cost of production in this country and in Great Britain. The duty should be at least doubled ; instead of be- ing 1 cent per pound it should be at least 2 cents. The present duty is a purely revenue duty ; it protects no American interest, but gives to British manufacturers the monopoly of supplying our markets with tin plates. Tin plates are a highly-finished metallurgical product, and much labor and skill are required in the final stages of their manufacture. But it is well to consider also the vast quantities of raw materials and the vast amount of labor that enter into the primary and intermediate stages of the production of so large a quantity of foreign-made tin plates as this country annually consumes. Why should we not utilize our own re- sources for the manufacture of the tin plates we need? Why not em- ploy our own labor instead of the labor of another country in supplying this want? Establish in this country a tin plate industry through the agency of a protective duty, and the same beneficial results to consum- ers that have followed the establishment of our steel-rail industry may confidently be looked for. No American industry that has been ade- quately protected has ever increased to consumers the cost of its prod- ucts. If we had a thoroughly protected tin-plate industry it would form no exception to this rule. The duty on iron wire rods under the tariff which was in force prior to the 30th of June, 1883, was 1J cents per pound, and that on steel wire rods was 30 per cent, ad valorem. The present duty of .0 ceut per pound on iron wire rods has greatly increased their importation and correspondingly decreased their domestic production . Many of our iron wire-rod mills were compulsorily closed soon after the new duty went into operation, and they remain closed to day. The old duty of 1J cents per pound should be restored. The duty on steel wire rods not lighter than number 5 wire gauge and valued at 3J cents or less per pound was changed by the act of March 3, 1883, from 30 per cent, ad valorem to .G cent per pound. The new duty is not so protective as it should be, im- portations being still large, as the statistics we have given will show. The demand for iron and steel wire rods has greatly increased in this country in recent years, chiefly because they are the raw materials for telegraph and telephone wire and wire fencing, as well as for other pur- poses. It is a matter of importance, therefore, that we should properly encourage the manufacture of both these products, which in the primary, intermediate, and finished processes of their manufacture require much labor and consume large quantities of the raw materials which enter into all iron and steel products. No consuming interest can suffer by the manufacture at home of all, or nearly all, these articles that are needed to supply the domestic demand. Such protection as has been given to our steel wire-rod industry has certainly not increased the cost of wire fencing to the American farmer. It never was so cheap as it has been during the past twelve months. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE DUTIES ON IRON AND STEEL. The value of all the iron and steel and manufactures thereof and iron ore that was entered and withdrawn from warehouse for consumption in the fiscal year 1884 was $42,917,747.36. The duty collected on these iron and steel commodities was $14,810,001.32. The average ad valorem rate on the whole importation of iron and steel and manufactures thereof and also on iron ore was 34.48 per cent. This average is low in view of the fact that the fiscal year 1884 was a year of low prices, which had the effect of advancing the ad valorem equivalent of specific REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 355 duties. The average is also low when compared with the average duty collected on all dutiable goods entered for consumption and withdrawn from warehouse in the fiscal year 1884, which was 41.61 per cent. These statistics are presented to show that our iron and steel industries enjoy no undue advantage in the present tariff over other industries. On the contrary, we have pointed out some of the disadvantages which have been imposed on them by the new tariff. There are certain theorists who contend that, because pig iron can be cheaply made in some Southern States, a protective duty on this article is not needed by the country at large, and that the South should be per initted to make all the pig iron that the country requires, t his is a very short-sighted view, even if it were possible for the South to supply so large a quantity of pig iron. Because there is natural gas at Pitts- burgh shall all the bar iron and all the nails and all the glass that the country needs be made there ? Because cotton goods can be cheaply manufactured in New England shall no other section of the country build cotton factories'? Because the valleys are fertile shall the hill sides not be cultivated ? We rejoice at the rapid growth of the pig-iron industry of the South, but the best friends of this industry see clearly that its prosperity could not have been achieved without the help of a protective duty. The principal market for Southern pig-iron is in the North, and to reach this market from $3 to $4 per ton must be paid for freight. This freight brings the cost of Southern pig-iron at the places where it is consumed in line with the cost of Northern pig-iron. If a purely revenue duty, in other words, a low duty, had been imposed on foreign pig-iron in recent years Southern pig-iron would have been com- pelled to meet a more active foreign competition and lower prices in the North than it has encountered, and if it had met with this opposition its manufacture certainly could not have prospered. Reduce the duty on pig-iron to-day and the Southern pig-iron that is now sold in the North would largely be replaced by the still cheaper foreign pig-iron. We prefer to see Southern pig-iron coming North in increasing quanti- ties rather than to see an increase in our consumption of foreign pig- iron ; we put the prosperity of every section of our own country before that of any other country. Objection is sometimes made to the imposition of any duty on iron ore because it is a raw material, a free gift of nature. There are honest differences of opinion among believers in the protective policy concern- ing the amount of the duty which should be imposed on this article, but there can be no difference of opinion among them concerning the duty of the Government to shield from injurious foreign competition every American industry that is in need of its fostering care. Our iron-ore industry is unquestionably such an industry. We have iron ore m abundance in many States. The unrestricted importation, that is to say, the free importation, of foreign iron ore would have a strong tend- ency to close many of our own iron-ore mines and to reduce the wages of the workingmen who would be employed in operating the remainder. We protest against the adoption of this policy, which is based upon the theory that iron ore is a raw material. When taken from the mine and marketed it is the product of labor ; its value is almost entirely due to the labor that is employed in its development. Ignore the claims to protection of the American iron-ore industry, because iron ore is a raw material, and with as much reason the claims to protection of almost every other American industry could be ignored. Pig-iron is a raw ma- terial to the bar iron manufacturer, and bar iron is a raw material to the car builder and the wagon and carriage manufacturer. The principle involved in the protection of the iron-ore producer is precisely the same 356 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. as that which is involved in the protection of the pig-iron manufacturer and the bar-iron manufacturer. Protectionists could not consistently or justly asseut to a policy which would shield from injurious foreign competition the domestic capital and labor that are enlisted in some in- dustries and at the same time expose to this competition another in- dustry which also employs home capital and home labor. Protection to American industry is a principle and not an expedient. Iron and steel manufacturers therefore do not wish to see iron ore placed in the free list, or bituminous coal and coke. THE COST OF PRODUCING IRON AND STEEL. We now come to consider that part of the circular letter which relates to the comparative cost of production of manufactured articles in this country and in other countries. Owing to circumstances which have already been explained we are unable to present detailed statistics of the cost of production of iron and steel in this country. Only fragmentary information has been received. Such information as we may give will not pretend to embody perfect averages of cost of production for the whole country. With regard to the cost of producing iron aud steel in competing countries we have not believed it to be necessary to attempt to ascer- tain the elements of this cost, assuming that for all practical purposes the prices at which these products have recently been sold may be ac- cepted as an approximation to their actual and usual cost. Foreigu iron and steel markets have not recently been excited from any cause, while it may truthfully be said that low juices are the rule rather thau the exception in all European countries. Economic conditions are more circumscribed and exacting and therefore more stable in those countries than in our own ; labor is more at the mercy of capital ; foreign markets are more sought after ; hence prices and cost of production are always lower and more uniform thau with us. In such illustrative references as we may make to foreigu competition with our own people in the manufacture of iron and steel we shall assume, therefore, that the foreign price to-day approximates the usual foreigu cost. The returns which we have received of the average cost of production of pig-iron at a number of blastfurnaces in 1882, 1883, and 1884, while possibly varying from a true average of this cost for the country at large, enable us to reach the true relation of the cost of the labor em- ployed in producing a ton of pig-iron to the cost of all the other ele- ments entering into its production. Of these furnaces some used anthra- cite and bituminous coal aud others used charcoal. The returns show that the total average cost of producing a gross ton of pig-iron at these furnaces in the years mentioned was as follows : ! Anthracite and bitu- minous. Charcoal. Labor in prod lining raw materials .... $10 26 1 78 1 91 $9 62 3 17 2 44 Labor in transporting raw materials Labor at furnace, including repairs Total cost of labor 13 95 5 22 15 23 5 18 Taxes, insurance, commissions, office expenses, interest, freight, traveling ex- penses, royalties, &c Total cost of a ton of pig-iron Percflntao'o (»f labor cost to total cost 19 17 73 20 41 74 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 35 ? The anthracite and bituminous furnaces referred to above used an average of 2.08 tons of iron ore, 1.54 tons of fuel, and 1.04 tons of lime- stone in making a ton of pig-iron, and the charcoal furnaces used an average of 2.3 tons of iron ore, 137 bushels of charcoal, and .29 ton of limestone. The furnaces which supply the foregoing averages are widely separated, some are old-fashioned in construction, and few of them use the rich ores of Lake Superior. All are, however, among our good and well-managed furnaces, but only a few are among the newest and best equipped. We have taken the average of the years 1882, 1883, and 1884, instead of the present year, for the reason that labor in the iron industry in this country is paid less in 1885 than it should receive, and less than it has been accustomed to receive. The average wages paid in 1882, 1883, and 1884, which were years of fair prosperity for this country, cannot be taken exception to. The foregoing details show that 73 per cent, of the cost of producing a ton of pig-iron with anthracite or bituminous coal in the years men- tioned was paid in wages to labor, and that 74 per cent, of the cost of producing a ton of charcoal pig-iron in the same years was similarly paid. Taking these percentages, and assuming, as we may correctly assume, that the same proportions hold good from year to year, we find that labor — the labor which toils hard with its hands and with bent back — receives very nearly three-fourths of the cost of producing a ton of pig-iron in this country. This calculation excludes clerical labor, and the labor of the tax gatherer, the insurance agent, the commission merchant, and all others. The workingman, therefore, has the greatest stake in the duty which protects our pig-iron industry against the com- petition of the foreign producer of pig-iron. What is the measure of this competition % Primarily, and for present purposes of comparison, it is the price at which foreign pig-iron is sold for shipment to our market. As we have already explained, the present prices of iron and steel abroad may be regarded as approximating the usual prices of these articles, and pig-iron forms no exception to this rule. We find by reference to the foreign market reports for October last that the prices of English and Scotch pig iron were then as follows : English money. United States money. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 West Coast hematite (Bessemer) f. o. b s. d. 43 6 37 0 43 0 48 6 $10 r»8 9 00 10 45 11 80 No. 1 Middlesbrough (Cleveland cold-short} f. o. b. ship No. 1 Eglinton (Scotch) alongside ship No. 1 Coltness (Scotch) alongside ship „ It will be seen from a comparison of these figures with those given above that the price per ton at which foreign pig-iron can be put on board vessels for shipment to the United States is several dollars less than the labor cost of a ton of pig-iron in this country when the wages paid are an average of those which prevailed in 1882, 1883, and 1884. The highest price above quoted for foreign pig-iron is $11.80, while the lowest average labor cost of a ton of pig-iron in this country in the years named was $13.95. This cost was, however, only 73 per cent, of the total cost, and if allowance be made for the remaining 27 per cent, of this total cost it will be 'seen at a glance that the present duty of $0.72 per ton on pig-iron is uot equal to the difference between the total 358 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cost at home and the price abroad. The cost of transporting pig-iron from European to American seaports is no hindrance to its sale in our markets. The freight on pig-iron from Glasgow to New York was only 50 cents per ton in October of the present year, whereas the freight on pig-iron from the Lehigh Valley to New York, a distance of less than 100 miles, averaged $1. The next illustration which we shall give of the comparative cost of producing iron and steel in this country and in Europe relates to bar iron. The figures we will quote for our own country will comprise only the cost of the labor employed in all the stages necessary to produce from the raw materials a ton of best refined bar iron. The period to which these figures refer is the early part of 1882. We prefer the figures we are about to give to those we have ourselves recently collected because they are from the hand of one of the most eminent, painstaking, and capable of American ironmasters, Mr. John Griffen, now deceased, but for many years the superintendent of the Phoenix Iron Works, at Phoenixville, Pa. In April, 1882, Mr. Grifien compiled for the American Iron and Steel Association from the books of the Phoenix Iron Company the following statement of the labor cost to that company of a ton of best bar iron, which cost was undoubtedly a fair average for the country at large : 1 . — Pig iron. Wages earned in raining enough ore for 1 ton pig iron -15 18 Wages earned in mining enough limestone for 1 ton pig iron 33 Wages earned in mining enough anthracite for 1 ton pig iron 1 71 Wages earned in making enough coke for 1 ton pig iron 28 Wages earned in transporting above ore 56 Wages earned in transporting above limestone 06 Wages earned in transporting above anthracite 45 Wages earned in transporting above coke 22 Wages earned by furnace hands in making 1 ton pig iron 2 75 Total wages earned in making 1 gross ton pig iron 11 54 2 . — Muck bar. [It requires 1.13 gross tons of pig iron to make 1 gross ton of muck bar. If there are $11.54 labor earnings in 1 ton of pig iron, in 1.13 tons of pig iron, or 1 ton of muck bar, there are $13.04. The whole labor earnings in 1 gross ton of muck bar are as follows:] Wages earned in making 1.13 tons pig iron $13 04 Wages earned in mining coal used in puddling 1 ton muck bar 1 71 Wages earned in mining ore used in fettling 1 ton of muck bar 90 Wages earned in transporting the above coal 56 Wages earned in transporting the above ore 20 Wages earned by mill hands in making 1 ton of muck bar 7 44 Total wages earned in making 1 gross ton muck bar 23 85 3 . — Finished bar. [It requires 1.20 gross tons of muck bar to make 1 gross ton of fiuished bar, ready for the market. If there are $23.85 labor earnings in 1 ton of muck bar, in 1.20 tons of muck bar, or l ton of finished bar, there are $28.62. The whole labor earnings in 1 gross ton of fiuished bar are as follows:] Wages earned in making 1.20 tons muck bar $28 G2 Wages earned in mining coal used in heating 1 ton fiuished bar 89 Wages earned in mining sand used to 1 ton of finished bar 20 Wages earned in transporting above coal 25 Wages earned by mill hands in making 1 ton finished bar 6 31 Total wages earned in making 1 gross ton of finished bar iron 36 27 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 359 4. — Summary. [The three preceding statements represent the successive steps in the transforma- tion of iron ore, limestone, and fuel into bar iron. The following statement sum- marizes the whole operation, giving the quantities of raw materials used in making a ton of bar iron and the total earnings of the labor employed.] Wages earned in preparing 3.53 gross tons iron ore $8 10 Wages earned in preparing .88 gross ton limestone 45 Wages earned in preparing 4.84 gross tons coal and coke 5 64 Wages earned in preparing .10 gross ton sand 20 Wages earned in transporting above materials 2 91 Wages earned at blast furnace and in mill 18 97 Total wages earned in making 1 gross ton of finished bar iron 36 27 The total cost of making a ton of bar iron embraces a number of other elements, including the cost of materials additional to their labor cost, freight charges above wages earned in transportation, insurance, taxes, commissions, interest, office expenses, &c. This total cost in the early part of 1882 was not given by Mr Griffen, but it was about $50, which would make the labor cost of a ton of bar iron at the period mentioned 72 per cent, of the total cost. Substantially the same proportion of labor cost to total cost in the manufacture of bar iron undoubtedly exists in our rolling mills to-day. The workingman, therefore, has the largest stake in the duty on bar iron. It is proper to explain that the low labor cost ($11.54) of producing a ton of pig iron by the Phoenix Iron Company in 1882 was due to the fact that the company drew its supply of iron ore mainly from its own ore mines, which were near at hand, and also to the fact that its sup- ply of coal was mainly drawn from near-by sources, the wages paid for the transportation of these products being therefore exceptionally small. The figures which have just been given have been used solely to show the relation of the labor cost to the total cost of a ton of bar-iron. But they have another significance. The present exceptionally low price of American bar iron of best quality is about $39 per ton ; the preseut price of best Welsh bar-iron at shipping ports is £5, or about $25 ; Bel- gian bar-iron can be bought at even lower prices ; the duty is $17.92. A slight advance in the price at home, if accompanied by a slight re- duction of the duty, would bring foreign bar-iron into our markets in large quantities. We need not multiply these illustrations. What has been shown of the labor cost of pig-iron and bar-iron might be shown substantially of all other iron and steel products. Labor constitutes the principal ele- ment in the cost of these products. Wages are higher, very much high- er, in this country than in competing European countries, and hence not a tariff for revenue but a tariff for protection is needed to enable our manufacturers to pay these higher wages. We regard it as wholly unnecessary to present statistics showing the difference between the wages paid in this country and in European countries. That the gulf between the labor systems of this country and Europe is very wide re- quires no demonstration at this late day. If our present protective tariff should be reduced one of two possible results would certainly hap- pen : either the wages of American workingrueu would also have to be reduced or our markets would become the prey of foreign manufactur- ers. This proposition is so self-evident that we wonder that any advo- cate of lower duties should affect to iguore.it. We respectfully submit, however, that the cost of production is not the only subject that deserves consideration in the framing of a tariff law. Our manufacturers should be protected against the possible un- 360 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. loading on onr markets, at a loss, of the surplus products of other coutn tries which cannot be sold at a profit. They should be protected against the low ocean freights on European commodities which usually prevail* and which are always much lower than our own railroad freights, low as the latter now are. The difference in the cost of transporting manu- factured products from our own manufacturing centers to points of dis- tribution or consumption on or near the sea coast or in the Gulf States, and the cost of transporting the same articles by water from Europe to the same markets is invariably in favor of the foreign manufacturer. Then, again, our manufacturers are required to pay higher rates of in- terest than their European competitors for the money that they may find it necessary to borrow in the ordinary conduct of their business or to carry them through periods of depression. They require higher profits, too, than the people of European countries. Owing to our higher wages and the higher cost of all our building materials much more capital is needed to establish a manufacturing enterprise in this country than in Europe. It may safely be assumed, for instance, that a blast furnace of given capacity w T hich would cost $100,000 in Europe would cost $200,000 in our own country. To yield the same interest on the capital invested, it will readily be seen that, if the two furnaces pro- duce precisely the same quantity of pig-iron annually, a profit of $1 per ton in Europe would call for a larger profit in this country. Nor should it be forgotten that the profits of manufacturing in this country are nearly always invested in new manufacturing enterprises, which employ additional labor. Still another subject deserving of serious consideration in the framing of a tariff law is the depreciation in the value of the plants of manufact- uring establishments. Improvements in processes are constantly tak- ing place, many of which require the complete substitution of new ma- chinery for old ; even improved machinery wears out and must be re- placed. The capital that is invested in a plant that must be in large part renewed or give way wholly to a more modern process of manu- facture would be lost if provision were not made in a surplus fund for this class of contingencies, which fund must be supplied from profits that are independent of all considerations of cost of production. If our manufacturers are to keep abreast of the times, and particularly if they are to be prepared to order new machinery when the old wears out, they must realize profits that will allow for the depreciation in their plants ; otherwise their enterprises perish. THE FRUITS OF PROTECTION. The statesmen of this country cannot afford to misunderstand the elements of our national prosperity. Chief among these is our protect- ive policy. Protection has done a great work for the people of this country during the past twenty-five years, and we are glad to be able to say that this fact is now generally recognized and appreciated, even by our industrial rivals in other countries. It is admitted by all except mere theorists that protection aids in the development of all the resources of the country; that it stimulates the investment of capital; that it gives steady employment to our own people; that it cheapens the cost of manufactured products while enhancing the wages of labor; that it cheapens the cost of transportation ; that it furnishes a home market, and therefore a sure market, for much the larger part of our agricultural products; and, finally, that it keeps at home and in circu- lation large sums of money that would otherwise be sent abroad. This is what protection for the sake of protection does for us directly ; iuci- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 361 dentally it furnishes revenue to the Government through the duties col- lected on foreign commodities. A tariff for revenue only might furnish the same amount of revenue, but it would not insure steady employ- ment to the people nor produce any of the other benefits which protec- tion brings. The tariffs of 1840 and 1857 were purely revenue tariff's. While they were in operation no domestic industry prospered as it has since prospered under our protective policy. But for the Irish famine, the discovery of gold in California, and the Crimean war the fifteen years during which these tariffs were in operation would have been years of much greater industrial distress in our country than they were. That period in our history ended with the inability of the Government to pay its ordinary expenses; it was forced to become a borrower at usurious rates of interest. The country was then at peace. Under the Morrill protective tariff and its various supplements down to the pres- ent time the country’s industrial life has not only been remarkably quickened, but the Government revenue from duties on imports has greatly increased. Never since the world began have the industries of any country been so wonderfully developed in a brief time as the indus- tries of this country have been during the quarter of a century which has elapsed since the passage of the Morrill tariff in 1861. Nevertheless the assertion is sometimes made that a protective tariff is a tax on consumers because it increases the cost of articles the man- ufacture of which is protected against injurious foreign competition. Those who make this assertion ignore the benefits of protection to which we have alluded, and they ignore also the price lists and market quota- tions in recent years, when the inflation of values caused by the expan- sion of the currency as an incident of our civil war had passed away. The following table will show that protection, instead of being a tax on consumers, has cheapened the price to them of leading manufactured articles of iron and steel since the break in 1873 of the inflated prices which the financial legislation of the war period had created. The prices we give embrace the revenue tariff period already alluded to and the protective tariff period which was ushered in by the Morrill tariff of 1861. These prices are yearly averages for No. 1 anthracite foundry pig iron, best refined bar iron, and iron rails, all per gross ton, at Phila- delphia; nails, per keg, wholesale, at Philadelphia; and steel rails, per gross ton at Pennsylvania mills : Years. 3840 1847 1848 3849 185U 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 m 30# 26# 22f 20 $ 215 22f m 36# m 27 * 26# 22 # 23# 22 # Average 26# Revenue prices. Protective prices. Bar iron. Iron rails. Cut nails. Years. Pig iron. Bar iron. Steel rails. Cut nails. ■ $91 66 1874 $30# $67 95 $94# $3 99 86 04 $69 $4 46 1875 25# 60 85 68# 3 42 79 33 62# 4 30 1876 22# 52 08 59# 2 98 67 50 53# 4 00 1877 18# 45 55 45# 2 57 59 54 47#* 3 65 1878 17# 44 24 42# 2 31 54 66 45# 3 30 1879 21# 51 85 48# 2 69 58 79 48# 3 08 1880 28# 60 38 67# 3 68 83 50 77# 4 50 1881 25# 58 05 61# 3 09 91 33 80# 4 60 1882 25# 61 41 48# 3 47 74 58 62# 4 10 1883 22# 50 30 37# 3 06 73 75 64# 3 94 1884 : 19# 44 05 30! 2 39 71 04 62 29 60 00 58 75 64# 50 49# 48 3 72 3 50 3 96 3 13 1885 (9 months) 17# 39 37 27# 2 25 71 52 58# 3 87 Average 23 53 00 52# 2 99 36'2 REPORT OP THE SECRETARY OE THE TREASURY. These figures show that pig iron, bar iron, and nails have been cheaper under protection than under a revenue policy, and that steel rails have been sold under protection at much cheaper prices than iron rails were sold under a revenue tariff. Yet we do not contend for cheapness as the most desirable result of the protective policy. Steady employment of the people, good wages, general prosperity, and the ability to con- sume the products of industry are of far more importance. The charge has also been made that protection is especially a tax upon the farmers because by increasing the cost of railroad materials it increases the cost of transporting agricultural products to market. That this charge is also made without reference to the facts is shown in the xjrices of steel rails already given and by the following table of average freight charges per bushel for the transportation of wheat, a representative product, from Chicago to New York, from 1868 to 1884. This table was compiled by the Hon. Joseph Nimmo, jr., late Chief of the Bureau of Statistics : Tears. By lake and ! canal. j By lake and rail. By all rail. 1868 Cents. 24.54 Cents. 29.0 Cents. 42.6 1869 23. 12 25.0 35.1 1870 17. 10 22.0 33.3 1871 . 20. 24 25.0 31.0 1872 24. 50 28.0 33.5 1873 19.19 26.9 33.2 1874 14.10 16.9 28.7 1875 11.43 14.6 24.1 1876 9. 58 11.8 16.5 Years. By lake and canal. By lake and rail. By all rail. Cents. Cents. Cents. 1877 11.21 15.8 20.3 1878 9. 15 11.4 17.7 1879 11.60 13. 3 17.3 1880 | 12.27 15. 7 ?9. 7 1881 8. 19 10.4 14.4 1882 7. 89 10.9 14.6 1883 8. 40 11.5 i 16.5 1884, January to September. 1885* 6. 60 9. 75 13.0 * Quotations are wanting. It is shown by this table that since 1868, when the statistics com- mence, the freight on wheat from Chicago to New York has steadily and rapidly declined. The railroad companies have largely been ena- bled to reduce their rates of freight because protection, by encouraging domestic competition in the manufacture of steel rails, and in the man- ufacture of iron and other articles entering into the construction of cars and locomotives, has cheapened the cost of building and equipping railroads ; and because the use of cheap steel rails, which protection alone had made possible, has largely increased the carrying capacity of the railroads without correspondingly adding to their operating ex- penses. The competition of the railroads compelled a reduction of freight rates by lake and canal. Protection, therefore, has not hindered but has greatly helped the farmers to send their products to market. SHALL THE TARIFF OF 1883 BE REVISED? We now come to consider the practical question involved in the sug- gestion from unofficial sources that the present tariff requires general revision. If our protective policy has been productive of only bene- ficial results to all the people of our country, and if these results are generally conceded, why should any reduction of duties be proposed in any quarter? First, because it is alleged that many duties in. the pres- ent tariff are excessive and therefore burdensome; and, second, because it is alleged that the tariff as a whole is productive of too much reve- nue, and that the surplus revenue should be reduced in the interest of good government, as well as to relieve the people of unnecessary taxa* REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 363 tiou. These reasons for precipitating another tariff agitation upon the country will be briefly examined. We know of few duties in our present tariff that are higher than are needed for the protection of domestic industries, while, as we have shown, there are several rates of duty in the metal schedule that are wholly inadequate for the protection of our iron and steel industries and for tire protection of the Government revenue. It is noticeable and significant that such demand as now exists for another revision of the tariff comes mainly from those who desire a still further reduction of duties than was accomplished in 1883, and who express no anxiety whatever concerning an increase of duties which would tend to restrict the importation of foreign goods. No existing duty which has built up a useful American industry is too high. If a protective duty has enlisted capital, employed labor, pro- moted competition, reduced prices, contributed to our industrial inde- pendence, and restricted the drain of the precious metals to Europe to pay for the products of foreign capital and labor it should not be re- pealed or reduced the moment it has accomplished these beneficent results. So long as it remains on the statute-book it can harm no American interest j the competition which it has created will guard con- sumers against unreasonable prices ; but repeal or reduce it and the in- dustry which it lias established is at once placed in jeopardy, the capi- tal invested in it loses its sense of security, activity is succeeded by lethargy, and consumers are soon confronted with advancing prices the benefit of which the foreigner receives, Our experience under the com- promise tariff of 1833 and the revenue tariffs of 1846 and 1857 proves the correctness of these statements. The compromise tariff of 1833, which succeeded the protective tariffs of 1824 and 1828, kept all the industries of the country in a dying condition for many years before its repeal ; the tariffs of 1846 and 1857 conspicuously retarded the devel- opment of our iron industry. In a few years after the passage of the tariff of 1846 our iron rail industry, which had been literally brought into existence by the protective tariff of 1842, was dead. The with- drawal of protection after it has once been granted has frequently in- jured the industries of this country fully as much as the failure to grant it when needed. Why should a duty which has rendered the country a real service be repealed or reduced unless it is intended that the foreign manufacturer shall thereby secure more ready access to our markets'? If experience shows that it has harmed no person but this foreign manufacturer, why should any loyal American agree to surrender one hair’s breadth of its patriotic provisions ? If the duty on pig iron, for instance, has secured a home supply of every quality needed, and at lower prices than were ever known under a revenue tariff, why should the duty now be reduced when one of the certain effects would be to stop many American fur- naces ? If the duty on steel rails has reduced their price to the owners of American railroads below the lowest price they ever paid for inferior iron rails, why should it now be reduced, when the only effect would be to enable the foreign manufacturer of steel rails to re-enter the Ameri- can market, from which our low prices have but recently driven him? What obligation rests on the people on the Government of this country to foster the manufactures of other countries and neglect their own ? But we are told that present duties yield too much revenue, and that they should be reduced 20 per cent., or more, for this reason alone, if for no other. Adopt the policy of a sweeping reduction for the reason stated, and there would follow a certain increase of importations, with the possible absurd consequence of an increase, instead of a decrease, of 364 REPORT or THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. revenue. Low duties would encourage importations for a time, until our people, through lack of profitable employment, would be unable to buy the products of either foreign or domestic industry. Then the revenue would surely decline, as it did under the revenue tariff of 1857. We can, in this way, reach a reduction of the revenue through the impov- erishment of the people. This cannot be what the advocates of another revision of the tariff desire. A more humane and patriotic way to re- duce the revenue would be to increase the duties, arid thus check im- portations. Those who have the most to say about our surplus revenue have ap- parently failed to notice the fact that the receipts of the Government from both customs duties and internal taxes have greatly declined within the last two years. We have not before us all the statistics that we would be glad to present in this connection, but we give the following statement of the receipts and expenditures of the Treasury for the two fiscal years which ended on the 30th of June last : 1885. 1884. RECEIPTS. Customs $181,471,339 112, 498, 725 29, 720, 042 $195,067,490 121, 586, 073 31,866, 308 Internal revenue _ _ _ _ Miscellaneous Total • 323, 690, 706 348, 519, 871 EXPENDITURES. Ordinary 152, 738, 412 56, 102, 267 51, 386, 256 134, 118, 638 54, 429, 228 55, 578, 378 Pensions Interest Totals 260, 226, 935 244, 126, 244 This statement shows that the receipts declined $24,829,105 in the last year, while the expenditures increased $16,100,691 in the same year, making a total loss to the Treasury of nearly $41,000,000 in the last year as compared with its predecessor, tn the first of the two fiscal years mentioned the surplus of receipts over expenditures was $104,393,627, but in the last year it was only $63,463,771. That the re- ceipts will be still less in the present fiscal year, which commenced on the 1st of July last, than in the preceding fiscal year is rendered certain by the decline which has already taken place, and that the surplus rev- enue will also be less is equally certain. It would seem that there is not likely to be very much surplus to worry about in the near future. But, even if there should appear to be a reasonable prospect that the present tariff and the present internal revenue laws will yield a surplus revenue of several millions from year to year if they are not amended, is there no better way of reducing this surplus than by making a present of it to foreign manufacturers by a reduction of duties ? Gould not our own people be more wisely and patriotically relieved of that portion of the internal taxes which is derived from tobacco, and in this way relieve the Treasury of its surplus revenue? But, better still, why not use the surplus in improving our sea-coast defenses, in building the navy that is so sorely needed, in making guns and armor-plate that will be in ac- cord with the military progress of the times, and in extending Govern- ment aid in the establishment of steampship lines which would carry the United States mail to foreign countries, and carry the products of Ameiican industry to foreign markets from which we are now debarred by the more vigorous policy of foreign governments? To give our sur- plus reveuue to foreigners under any circumstances, but especially when there is so much to be done to strengthen our defenses against REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 365 possible foreign enemies, ancl to increase our commerce with foreign countries, is madness. Ve have thus, Mr. Secretary, frankly expressed our views on all the subjects referred to in your circular letter. We have also freely ex- pressed our opinion concerning the question of a revision of tbe tariff which is likely to come before Congress. We have considered these subjects as business men who have to deal with facts and not with theories. W T e do not approve of the unofficial suggestion that there should be a general revision of the tariff. Our present tariff is a new tariff, less than three years old, and we know of no good reason why it should be revised, as is proposed, from beginning to end. That some of its provisions are injurious to our own people, and should be corrected so as to secure needed protection, we have pointed out, but so great is the danger to be apprehended from a general revision that we never- theless strongly object to this revision being undertaken at this time. We do not lack faith in the intelligence or the patriotism of Congress, but we know from sore experience how impossible it is for Congress, with many important questions pressing for its consideration, to give to the details of a tariff bill the time and attention that are absolutely necessary if great interests are not to be overlooked and great errors committed. We especially deprecate a reopening of the tariff question at the present time, when the industries of the country are beginning to revive from a protracted period of depression, brought about by world-wide causes and common to all manufacturing countries. Agita tiou of the tariff question when accompanied by the threat of a reduc- tion of duties is always a cause of business disturbance, but it is par- ticularly so at a time like this, when employers and their workmen have just passed through a most trying ordeal, and are beginning to see the substantial evidences of that improvement which they have long hoped for. To be confronted with the ghost of tariff revision and reduction at such a time is of itself a most unwelcome experience, but if for that ghost there shall be substituted the bones and flesh of a tariff bill pro- posing a general revision and reduction of duties, we hazard nothing in predicting that the effect on the business of the country will be simply disastrous. We pray, therefore, Mr. Secretary, in behalf of the great interests we represent, that such recommendations as you may make concerning the tariff will be practically limited to suggestions intended to secure such additional legislation as will make possible a more thorough enforcement of its existing provisions. In any sugges- tions of this character which you may make you will certainly have our hearty sympathy. We are, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servants, CONCLUSION. B. F. Jones, President. Joseph Wharton, 1 Samuel M. Felton, > Vice-Presidents. William Metcalf, 3 James M. Swank, General Manager. J. B. Moorhead, VV . XJ. KJ. VJUAij, Paris Haldeman, j Perciyal Koberts, 3 George W. Cope, Secretary. 366 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. [Circular to manufacturers.] Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D. C., July 17, 18.-^. Sir : Investigations of the methods of entry and appraisement of imported merchan- dise have shown that the tariff laws are largely evaded by undervaluation wherever the duties are levied ad valorem. A remedy suggested for this evil is the adoption of specific duties. With a view of obtaining information on this subject which may be useful to Congress in fiscal legislation, and as an aid in the improvement of the cus- toms-revenue system, it is deemed proper to ask the advice of those directly interested in the various industrial arts of the country which may be affected by tariff’ legislation, and which suffer more or less by reason of defective methods of adminis- tration. You are, therefore, requested to give your views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff and making the duty specific, so far as applicable to imported articles, such as are made or produced in the United States, in which you are inter- ested, or with which you are familiar, with as full information on the subject as you may be pleased to submit. It is desirable that, in additiou to a schedule showing the rates of specific duty which in your opinion should be levied upon the various kinds and qualities of mer- chandise embraced therein, the information furnished may cover the following points : (1) Commercial or technical designation of the article, with sample or samples. (2) Cost of production of a given unit of quantity, by weight or measure, with the following details as to each kind or quality of article, viz : (a) Cost of materials, character of same (as, for example^ if wool, the kind of wool), whether of foreign or domestic origin. If foreign, what part of the value represents duties paid thereon. ( b ) Cost of labor in detail, giving each item specifically, and the rates of wages paid. (c) Operating expenses, and how distributed. ( d ) Interest, (e) Other elements of cost not covered by the above. (3) Description of buildings and machinery, and amount of capital invested in each. (4) If the foreign article of similar kind and quality is subject to ad valorem duty, state as nearly as practicable the specific equivalent per a given unit of w eight or measure. (5) Mention any exceptional element of advantage or disadvantage in manufactur- ing, such as location of the factory with reference to market or means of transporta- tion, accessibility of supplies, nature of the power or kind of machinery used, character of labor employed, rates of wages paid, amount of taxes, or exemption from taxation, &c. You are also requested to forward such information as you may be able to submit showing the relative cost of manufacture of the same article in the United States and in Europe, particularly with regard to the cost of labor, as affected by the rate of wages paid in the different countries. State how much the total cost of a given unit of production is increased in the United States over European countries by reasou of the difference in wages paid and the rate of interest on capital employed. State also to what extent, within your knowledge of the special trade with which your business is connected, the present laws imposing taxes on the imported article have been evaded and how the same can be corrected, whether by specific duties or other- wise, and to what extent the home industry with which you are connected lias suffered from this cause. It is not intended that your reply shall be confined to the form or scope of the inquiries above suggested, but you are invited to give the fullest expres- sion of your views on the general subject indicated, in such manner and form as you may deem best. Publicity will not be given to names, location, or facts relating to the business of 'individuals or corporations. These will be treated as private, if so desired. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Very respectfullv, DANIEL MANNING, Secretary , Office of the American Iron and Steel Association, No. 261 South Fourth street , Philadelphia, July 18, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. : Sir : I am in receipt of your circular letter of Ihe 17th iustant in relation to proposed changes in the tariff laws. The subjects presented for consideration cover a wide field of inquiry and investigation, and a thorough study of them would occupy several REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 367 weeks and possibly months of time. I am, however, willing to begin their considera- tion at once, but before doing this I will thank you to advise me whether you expect this office lo respond for the whole iron and steel industries of the country, or whether you expect us to give only our own views as an association, accompanied by such general information as may be pertinent to the scope of the circular. This associa- tion embraces a large membership of iron and steel manufacturers. If desiredwe could undertake the collection of information from representative manufacturers in every part of the country. If we should agree to do this, however, we would be em- barrassed, and the work in hand would be greatly complica’ed if the Department should at the same time request replies from individual manufacturers. Such replies as we might receive we could digest, and the information obtained could be systema- tized and tabulated. I do not, however, suggest that this is the best method of obtaining the information you desire. My only object in calling attention to the matter is that we may know bow yon wish us to proceed in the premises. Very respectfully, yours, JAMES M. SWANK, General Manager. Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington , D. C., July 21, 1885. James M. Swank, Esq., General Manager American Iron and Steel Association, Philadelphia : Sir : I have received your letter of the 18th instant, in reference to my circular asking information concerning manufactures in which your association is interested. I have also received a communication from Mr. Joseph Wharton, vice-president of your association, on the same subject. You indicate your willingness to collect information from representative manufact- urers of iron and steel products, and tabulate the same for the use of this Depart- ment. You state, however, that you would be embarrassed if the Department should at the same time request replies from individual manufacturers, and desire to know before you commence the collection of statistics what action the Department will take in this regard. In reply I beg to say that the circular letter referred to has already been sent to a number of individual firms and corporations engaged in the iron and steel industries, and will probably go to others, as I desire to obtain the fullest information from all possible sources. I think you are in error in the supposition that this course will cause you embarrass- ment in collecting and collating information in the way you propose. The great value of information thus collected, digested, and tabulated under your direction is fully appreciated, and I shall be greatly obliged for any suggestions which your thorough familiarity with the subject and great experience in these matters may dictate. I trust, therefore, you will proceed with the work in the manner proposed by you, aud favor the Department with the results as soon as practicable. Very respectfully, D. MANNING, Secretary. Office of The American Iron and Steel Association, No. 261 South Fourth street, Philadelphia, July‘S, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, I). C. : Sir: Your letter of the 21st instant in relation to the collection of information in reply to your circular letter of the 17tli instant, has been received, and shall have careful consideration. In a few days I will be able to advise you of the extent to which our investigation of the subjects referred to in the circular letter can be carried. Very respectfully, vours, JAMES M. SWANK, General Manager. Office of The American Iron and Steel Association, No. 261 South Fourth street, Philadelphia, July 25, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. C. : Sir: At a conference ibis m< ruing with some of our friends, the second point of your circular letter in relation to duties on foreign goods was under consideration. 368 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. We all agreed that the cost of production to-day or at any time during the present year is entirely too low to he made the basis of legislation. Labor is paid less than it should receive, and capital as a rule is not adequately rewarded. It is desirable that the wages of labor should be increased as soon as possible. I respectfully sug- gest that all inquiries in relation to cost of production should be made to cover the average of the last three years, 1882, 1883, and 1884. The first year mentioned was a very prosperous year for all American industries ; the next year was very much less prosperous; and 1884 was in many respects a disastrous year. It is our candid opin- ion that an average of the cost of production for the three years mentioned, would furnish the only true basis for legislation. May I ask whether you would approve of this office making inquiries concerning the three years mentioned? To ask for pres- ent cost as a basis of legislation would be seriously objected to. Very respectfully, yours, JAMES M. SWANK, General Manager. Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington , D. C., August 3, 18'5. James M. Swank, Esq., General Manager American Iron and Steel Association, Philadelphia : Sir: In reply to your letter of the 25th ultimo, in which you suggest that inquiries in regard to the cost of production of iron and steel should be made to cover the average of three years (1882, 1883, and 1884), I have to state that your suggestion meets the cordial approval of the Department. Very respectfully, C. S. FAIRCHILD, Assistant Sewetary. Office of the American Iron and Steel Association, No. 261 South Fourth street, Philadelphia, August 12, 1885. Hon. C. S. Fairchild, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. : Dear Sir : Your letter, dated about August 1, in reference to the substitution of 1882, 1883, and 1884 for the present time in the collection of the statistics of the cost of production of manufactured products in our country, was duly received at our office and forwarded to me at Pittsburgh, where I then was. I had gone to Pitts- burgh partly to excite interest in the Secretary’s circular, and your letter was of much service to me in securing the promise of co-opemtion from leading Pittsburgh manu- facturers. Returning trorn Pittsburgh, \ placed your letter in the hands of one of our prominent Bessemer steel manufacturers, who will to-day lay it before his asso- ciates in the business at a meeting to be held at Long Branch. With this explana- tion you will understand why the receipt of your letter was notpromptly acknowledged by me. I am gratified that "the Department takes the same view of the subject of your letter that is taken by this association. Herewith I inclose to you copies ot a circular letter to all iron and steel manufact- urers, and of several series of interrogatories which we are now sending to them. I also inclose you copies of our Bulletin of last week and this week containing refer- ences to the Secretary’s circular. You will perceive from these various publications that this office is doing all that it can do to secure the active co-operation of iron and steel and all other manufacturers in the important work which the Department has undertaken. We do not approve of the project of a general revision of the tariff at this time, but this matter being beyond our control we believe that it is the duty of manufacturers to give to the Department the information it has requested. I am hopeful now that there will be a general response to the Department’s request. Sev- eral newspapers of influence have copied approvingly the editorial in our Bulletin of August 5. In sending out the interrogatories from this office it is not our intention to interfere in any way with the transmission of individual reports to the Department as requested in the Secretary’s circular. Our object is solely to secure reports to this office from manufacturers who would not otherwise take the trouble to report to the Depart- ing. I respectfully suggest that in any communications the Department may have with industrial organizations of the country like our own you might properly call their attention to the action we have taken. We have already sent copies of our Bulletin of August 5 to the officers of most of these organizations. Very respectfully, yours, JAMES M. SWANK, General Manager . REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 369 CIRCULAR LETTERS FROM THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL ASSOCIATION. Office of the American Iron and Steel Association, No. 261 South Fourth street , Philadelphia, August 10, 1885. To all Iron and Steel Manufacturers : Gentlemen : Inclosed herewith you will find a copy of the circular letter from the Secretary of the Treasury in relation to proposed changes in the tariff laws; also a series of interrogatories, prepared by this office, in relation to the cost of producing the product, or products, of your works. I am in receipt of a personal letter from the Secretary urging this association to assist him in obtaining the information called for in his circular letter, and the accompanying interrogatories have been framed to secure this information. It will be noticed that the Secretary’s circular letter im- plies that the information he desires concerning cost of production shall relate to the present time, and that the interrogatories by this office embrace the years 1882, 1883, and 1884. I have the Secretary’s express authority to make this important change in the scope of the investigation he has undertaken. In the Bulletin of this association for August 5 you will find an editorial article approving the Secretary’s call for information, which I hoj)e you will read carefully. In this article you will" see that it is our true policy to give the information that is asked for. I hope, therefore, lhat you will at once reply to the interrogatories con- tained in the accbmpanying blank, and send your reply to my address. I will use your answers only to enable this office to compile tabulated statements for the coun- try at large for the use of the Secretary. We will not print, nor in any way disclose to any person but the Secretary of the Treasury, the replies you may make. We will tabulate the returns by States and districts, precisely as we do in compiling the ordinary statistics of this association. I trust that you will co-operate promptly with this office in furnishing the Secretary with the information he desires. It is not desired nor proposed that any suggestions shall be made to him by this office con- cerning any changes in the present rates of duties, except in those cases where the duties are manifestly too low, as in the case of tin plates, or where an ad valorem duty should be exchanged for a specific duty. If you discover that the blank or blanks sent you are not precisely suited to your works, the character of the materials you use, or the kind of product you make, please correct the interrogatories or supply the omissions. We have given an abundance of room between lines for this purpose. Very respectiully, yours, • JAMES M. SWANK, Vice-President and General Manager. Office of the American Iron and Steel Association, No. 261 South Fourth street , Philadelphia, September 3, 1885. To all Iron and Steel Manufacturers : Gentlemen : I respectfully request that your reply to the interrogatories we have already sent you concerning Secretary Manning’s circular be sent to me as soon as possible. Wo desire to make a summary during the present month of the replies sent to us by the manufacturers. If it is not convenient for you to give exact figures of cost of production for 1882, 1883, and 1884 please make careful estimates. Allow me to call your attention to some observations in relation to Mr. Manning’s circular, which will be found on the first page of our Bulletin for the 2d instant. Very respectfully, yours, JAMES M. SWANK, Vice-President and General Manager. ACTION OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL ASSOCIATION. At a meeting of the executive committee of the American Iron and Steel Associa- tion, held at Philadelphia on Wedne day, October 14, for the purpose of considering the circular letter of Secretary Manning in relation to duties on imports, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: (1) Besolvcd, That we approve the action that has been taken by the officers of this association in requesting, in response to the circular letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, information from iron and si eel manufacturers concerning the cost of pro- duction of the various articles of iron and steel, believing that such information could not fail to justify the present duties on these products. S. Ex. 72 24 370 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TifE TREASURY. (2) Resolved, That we regard the present tariff, which was enacted less than three years ago, after nearly two years of Congressional agitation, as being in the main a wise law, although it contains some defects which we would be glad to see corrected if this could be done without re-opening the whole question of tariff revision. (3) Resolved, That we are earnestly opposed to any scheme of tariff revision which contemplates any further changes in the present tariff than the judicious substitution of specific for ad valorem duties or the correction of such manifest errors as the low rate on tin plates — a rate which gives to England the monopoly of the manufacture of this indispensable article, and permits no American citizen to engage in its pro- duction. (4) Resolved, That it is our sincere opinion that if a general revision of the tariff should be undertaken at the next session of Congress, the immediate effect would be to seriously check the welcome revival in business which has recently commenced in every part of the country, and we appeal to Congress to promptly declare its hostility to any such project. (5) Resolved , That wo appeal to the President and to the Secretary of the Treasury to give assurance to the country in the official papers which they will soon prepare, in anticipation of the meeting .of Congress, and which will be eagerly read by all the people, that the project of another general revision of the tariff at the present time does not receive their official sanction. (6) Resolved , That such information as has been collected by the American Iron and Steel Association concerning the cost of production of iron and steel shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury at as early a day as possible, and that copies of the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the President and the Secretary immediately. Executive Mansion, Washington, October 19, 1885. James M. Swank, Esq., Vice-President American Iron and Steel Association, Philadelphia. My Dear Sir : The President directs me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 141 li instant, inclosing resolutions of the executive committee of the American Iron and Steel Association in relation to duties on imports, and to say that the sug- gestions contained therein will have due consideration. Yery truly yours, DANIEL S. LAMONT, Private Secretary. LETTERS FROM IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURERS TO THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL ASSOCIATION. South Mountain Mining and Iron Company , Pine Grove Furnace, Cumberland County , Penn- sylvania. — Our business of manufacturing iron blooms is injuriously affected by the ad valorem rate of duty on Scotch open-hearth steel blooms. We would recommend a specific duty of $21 per ton on such steel blooms. McCullough Iron Company, of Wilmington, Bel., and of Cecil County, Maryland. — The ad valorem rate of 45 per cent, on steel ingots and blooms should be changed to 1| cents per pound specific. The ad valorem rate of 30 per cent, on sheet iron thinner than No. 29 and on taggers iron also affects us injuriously. A specific duty of 1.9 cents per pound should be imposed on these thicknesses. Bernard Lauth, Howard Iron Works, Centre County, Pennsylvania. — We want a higher rate of duty on charcoal pig-iron. We want a tariff that will protect. William W. Wood, Wood’s Falls, Clinton County, New York . — Our Champlain ore blooms are used for steel purposes and for wire rods. Add to their price $10 per ton for roll- ing and compare with the price of foreign iron wire rods, and it will be seen that foreign rods are much cheaper. Since the duty has been reduced on iron wire rods my forge has only been able to work to one-third of its capacity. William Mcllvain Sons, Reading, Pa. — We most earnestly take exception to ad valorem duties, inasmuch as they injuriously increase prices on a higher market, and with equally bad effect tend to depress still more a low market. We would advocate in all cases absolute specific duties. In the case of materials of several grades or quali- ties, and subject to difference in price, a scale in tho duties could be applied under a specific ruling, avoiding fluctuations in the market to a very great extent and estab- lishing a permanency in trade that is desirable at all times. Marshall Bros, cf Co., Philadelphia. — We should have at least 1.9 cents to 2 cents ^er pound duty on tpggers iron, The present ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, is qo pro? REVISION OF, THE TARIFF. 371 tection, as there is undervaluation on all the light sheets. A higher duty is also needed on heavier gauges. When sheet iron is sold here on a profitable basis tv© are affected at once by foreign sheets. We need the old duty, or the one recommended by the tariff commission of 1882, in order to successfully compete with foreign manufact- urers. Everson , Hammond fy Orr , Pittsburgh, Pa . — We used to make largely No. 30 trunk sheets when the duty was If cents per pound; now, under the ad valorem duty of 30 per cent., the trade is entirely gone. J. It. Bringhurst, Marshallton, Del . — Taggers iron should have a specific duty per pound at least equal to that imposed on No. 28 sheet iron, which is 1.5 ceuts per pound. Marshall Iron Company, Newport, Del . — Our business of manufacturing sheet iron is injuriously affected by the low ad valorem duty on taggers iron, which should be sub- ject to a specific duty of 2 cents per pound, and it is also affected by the inconsistent duty on imported tinned sheet iron, known as tin plate. John A. Iioebling’s Sons Company, Trenton, N. J . — The wire-rod rolling mill of this company has been closed for nearly two years because it is impossible to compete with imported rods. Hartman Steel Company Limited, Beaver Falls, Pa. — No. 6 steel wire rods have been imported largely at as low a duty as $11.50 per ton, which is permitted under the rate of 45 per cent, ad valorem, as against the specific duty of $13.44 per ton which is levied on No. 5 rods. We would recommend .8 cent per pound specific duty on rods lighter than No. 5. McDaniel Harvey Company, Philadelphia . — Our business of galvanizing sheet iron is most injuriously affected by the inadequate duty upon tin plates, terne plates, and taggers tin, which should be subjected to a duty of 2| cents per pound instead of 1 cent. In regard to the duty on sheet and taggers iron we have to say as follows : Taggers iron has been, and still is, dutiable at 30 per cent, ad valorem. It is held to comprise sheets as heavy as No. 30 wire gauge, but it is a fact, admitted both by con- sumers and importers, that almost, if not quite, the whole consumption is of Nos. 36 and 38 gauge or lighter. These gauges are made in tin-plate sizes, namely, 10 inches by 14 inches, 14 inches by 20 inches, &c. But there is also a great deal of No. 30 sheet iron used for various purposes which is made in larger sheets of regular sheet- iron sizes, and which is, in fact, sheet iron and uot taggers iron at all, strictly speak- ing. It is not right that this light sheet, the finest and lightest made, should be admitted at so much below the proper duty upon other gauges of light sheet iron, say Nos. 29, 28, and 27. American manufacturers of light sheets cannot compete with foreign manufacturers with a duty of only 30 per cent, ad valorem. The difficulty of distinguishing between such light gauges as Nos. 29, 30, &c., is such that we have reason to fear that sheets heavier than No. 30 are imported under the guise of taggers iron, instead of at the proper duty of 1£ cents per pound as sheet iron. The makers of light sheets suffer much in consequence. On the subject of undervalution under the ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, it is needless to speak. There is always the possi- bility of it while the ad valorem rate exists, and we have every reason to believe, from comparison of the prices, at times, here and abroad, that such has been the case ; but sufficient proof is, of course, difficult to obtain. In the interest of a proper tariff re- form we ask that the schedule for sheet iron be extended so as to comprise all gauges from No. 25 to No. 33, instead of stopping at No. 29 as at present. This will not affect the users of real taggers iron, but will relieve the makers of light sheets in this coun- try and stop an opening for imp roper importation. In regard to lieavifr sheet iron we desire to point out the absurdity, to say nothing of the injustice, of allowing a higher duty upon boiler plate than upon sheet iron. Boiler plate is set down at 1£ cents per pound, while the duty on sheets up to No. 20 is only 1.1 cents. As four or five times more boiler plate than sheet iron can be rolled with the same expenditure of time and labor, sheet iron ought fairly to have a higher rate of duty than the for- mer. The duty on boiler plate being placed at cents per pound, then surely sheet iron from No. 12 to No. 20, inclusive, ought to have a duty adjusted' higher than is now imposed upon it, or at least 1£ cent's per pound, and lighter gauges should have still higher duties to correspond. George G. Lobdell, president Lobdell Car-Wheel Company, Wilmington, Del . — (11 I think it very important that all duties should be specific, and if they are so levied I believe that much trouble and expense in collecting them will be saved, and much fraud be prevented. (2) The largest part of our business is the manufacture of chilled railroad wheels, chilled rolls, and castings of iron and brass. These do uot come in competition with like articles made in other countries; hence we are not directly in- terested in the amount of duties imposed on this class of articles. We are, however, indirectly interested in the general prosperity of the country, which prosperity regu- lates the demand for our products. This demand is always greatest and the prices are most remunerative when the country isj>rosperous and the finances of the country are in a sound condition, with the balance of trade in favor of the United States, 372 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The prosperity of the agriculturist, the manufacturer, the artisan, the merchant, and all other classes, together with a sound condition of the finances of the country, can- not, in my opinion, be maintained without liberal protection on all articles that can be grown or made in this country. I believe that the stability and th$ perpetuity of the Republic depend on the intelligence and prosperity of the American laborer. I am, therefore, in favor of such rates of duties as will enable the people of this country to produce or manufacture everything that our soil, climate, forests, mines, and manu- factories are capable of producing, and this, too, without being compelled to reduce the compensation of the workingmeu of the country to the low rate paid in other countries. This company also manufactures charcoal pig-iron, which is used in making railroad wheels and chilled rolls. This product comes into direct competition with charcoal pig-iron made in Austria, Italy, Spain, and Sweden, and should be protected. A large portion of the cost of a ton of pig-iron is for labor ; labor in cutting and coaling the wood, mining the ore, hauling the coal and ore, and in smelting the ore. In view of this fact, and considering the great difference between the cost of labor in this country and that in European countries, I think that there should be a duty of not less than $10 per ton on all pig-iron imported that is smelted with charcoal. Miller , Metcalf Parkin , Pittsburgh , Pa. — (1) We manufacture crucible steel of “ Crescent ” brand. (2) With regard to the cost of production it would be impracti- cable for us to make reply within the time allotted. In order to obtain some of the items it would be necessary for us to go over our books of original entry for three years past, inasmuch as the specifications, as desired, are not such as we find neces- sary in our business, and to reply to others would be to publish details which are confidential, and, so far as we are concerned, are collated for the information and use of members of our firm only. We might say, however, that in the three years ending June 30, 18 5, very nearly one-half of the aggregate amount received in sales of steel was paid out directly in wages to our own employes, and that this does not include raw material, fuel, or repairs. (3) Our works cover about 8 acres. The buildings are brick, iron, and wood of the most substantial character. The machinery is of the most approved patterns and placed on heavy foundations. The a mount of capital in- vested is $1,000,000. (4) The foreign article of a -similar kind is subject to both ad va- lorem and specific duties. (5) Our location is of the best as regards manufacturing, obtaining supplies, and transportation to market. Steam power is used. Wages are high, and such as the best and most skilled workmen secure. Taxes are high and are imposed on all property, both real and personal. Regarding the manufacture of similar articles abroad we rely for statements of cost, &c., upon the consular reports and information obtained in like manner. This will apply both to raw material and wages. Regarding the evasion of the duty on imported articles we can only state our belief that it is frequently done in invoices made by foreign manufacturers to their own representatives in this country and which must of necessity be arbitrary. We would favor specific duties wherever possible, and when an ad valorem duty is a ne- cessity would be in favor of having it based upon value to be determined at the point of entry. The best specific duty which could be placed upon the low grades of steel would be 45 per cent, of 4 cents, or 1.8 cents per pound ; less than this would be of very little use to the trade in general. A. R. Whitney Co., New York City. — Believing it is necessary to tell some business secrets for the purpose of accomplishing anything, I would state that we are obliged to sell steel hoops cut to length, namely, If inches by ‘No. 18 and If inches by No. 17, delivered, for 1.9 cents per pound, which equals $42.56 per gross ton, or lose sales, as our customers can buy German steel hoops at this price. The duty on steel of every • description valued at 4 cents per pound or less is 45 per cent, ad valorem, and these hoops to cost $42.56 here must be sold at the point of shipment at £6 per gross ton, or a trifle more than $29. Every dollar of the difference is represented by increased cost of labor here. Instead of an ad valorem duty of 45 per ceut. we actually need three- fourths of a cent per pound on steel hoops of large sizes, If inches by No. 1 8 and larger ; 1 cent on If inches to seven-eighths inch or 1 inch ; and If cents on smaller sizes. Common steel plates cost £7 at Glasgow, Scotland, or If cents per pound, and the best are £8 10s., or under 2 cents per pound, f. o. b. One cent a pound duty is little enough on steel plates three-sixteeuths inch and thicker, and If cents on three-six- teenths to No. 14, If cents on Nos. 14 to 20, and If cents on thinner. O. P. Cobb, president Cobb's Iron and Nail Company, Aurora, Indiana. — I think the country is suffering more from tariff tinkering and the fear of it than from anything else. Within the last six years, since I have been manufacturing nails by my patent processes from wrought scrap-iron, the price of raw material has come down from $40 and $50 per ton to $14 and $18 per ton, and tenpenny nails have fallen from $5 per keg to $1.70, and other branches of business have experienced nearly the same change. And this ruinous change in prices has all taken place while we have had a good cur- rency and plenty of it, without any material change having been made in the tariff by Congress, but under its constant talk aud threats to change the present tariff, specifically, horizontally, or to free trade, for party purposes. This, in my opinion, REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 373 has done more to destroy confidence and ruin the former prosperity of our country even under the present tariff than all the faults that have yet been shown in that tariff. So there must be some better remedy for this evil than change of tariff. This great calamity that has befallen the business of the country may easily be remedied by Congress iff it will pass a resolution to let the present tariff alone. Robert Hare PoweVs Sons Co., Philadelphia. — We really cannot give the cost of our material or product, as we consider such a strictly private business matter. J. G. Butler, Jr., General Manager Brier Hill Iron and Coal Company, Youngstown, Ohio. — Since our very pleasant acquaintance began, many years ago, I have neither neglected nor refused to furnish you promptly any statistics asked for, and it has al- ways given me pleasure heretofore to do so, but in this instance I feel constrained to refuse. R. W. Comstock, Secretary Rhode Island Horse Shoe Company, Providence, R. J . — As we are the only manufacturers of horse shoes in New England it would be hardly just to ourselves to make the report you desire. James Greenwood, Secretary Thames Iron Works, Norwich, Conn. — We never answer such inquiries relative to our business, no matter by whom made. Sheldon fy Co., Auburn, N. Y. — We do not think it necessary to fill out these sheets, but we want to express to Secretary Manning, and through him to Congress, our aver- sion to any change in the tariff or any agitation on the subject. We are just recov- ering from a business depression, and now that we begin to see the light of day we hope and pray that the Secretary or Congress will not commence agitation of the tariff question, which will be certain to raise the very mischief with all kinds of busi- ness. There is nothing that a business man fears so much as the agitation of busi- ness subjects by Congress. It is with a sigh of relief that we read of its adjournment. Leave the tariff as it is and within a twelve-month every shop will be busy and the w r hole country will be happy. James Rowland Co., Philadelphia. — While we duly respect your impressions that it is proper policy to give the information asked, we cannot but differ from such view. The interrogatories are too inquisitorial, and a positive departure from our established impressions that the least developed about one’s private business affairs the better it is for that business. The present tariff is good enough. If it is bringing in too much revenue all the better ; let it come. Pay off the bonds, build ships, strengthen our present unprotected coast line, and with such a disposition of the excess of revenue, eonsumptiouofourproducts would be established, and our labor would be compensated far above foreign pauper labor. If they do otherwise by cutting down protection we will be a nation of discontents, which will be destructive to Democratic rule in the future. It seems to us that replying to Secretaf^ Manning’s inquiries simply accords with the idea of a change in the tariff beings necessary. We have no such accord. We positively protest against the change. Thomas M. Carnegie , Chairman Carnegie Brothers Co. Limited, Pittsburgh , Pa. — Not- withstanding your able argument in favor of reporting details of cost of production of iron and steel, as requested by the Secretary of the Treasury, and in a less objec- tionable form by yourself, I am of the opinion that our interest w r ould not be served by making such returns as you indicate. National Tube Works Company, McKeesport, Pa. — We respectfully decline to give Secretary Manning’s circular any attention whatever, as we are not in sympathy with Mr. Manning’s ideas, and therefore positively decline to impart the information called for. Mahoning Valley Iron Company, Youngstown, Ohio. — We do not keep our accouuis in such a manner that we cau answer these questions with any sort of accuracy, and we do not like to make an estimate, which may afterwards prove to be wrong. Ogden Bolton , President Bolton Steel Company, Canton, Ohio. — Our average cost would give you no information whatever, as it includes tool steel, cast steel, and common steel, and the respective proportions have not been uniform during the three years. We therefore cannot comply with your request. W. H. Wallace, President Jefferson Iron Works, Steubenville, Ohio. — We beg to decline to furnish the information asked for. Globe Rolling Mill Company , Cincinnati, Ohio. — We would be pleased to make up the statistics yon want, but we fear they would be misleading, as the average cost would be higher than it should be. Samuel Laughlin, President Junction Iron Company, Wheeling, W. Va. — The inquiries are such as I decline answering. Belmont Nail Company, Wheeling, W. Va. — It is not convenient at this time, in con- sequence of absence of office force, to go into the details you require, which we re- gret. m N. E. Whitaker, Secretary Whitaker Iron Company, Wheeling, W. Fa.— We are averse to stating the private features of our business, and espeoiallv to giving our cost of production. The Secretary of the Treasury can and need only look about him to see the idle mills and workshops, the idle workmen, and starving families living wholly on 374 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. charity, and the paralyzed condition of business generally. Strikes have been prev- alent over the entire country. Hands are unwilling to accept reduced wages, and factories are idle because of inability to pay good wages and avoid bankruptcy. What more does he need ? Further reductions of duty simply mean greater importa- tions, greater shrinkage in values of American plants, and more idle people and cap- ital. This has been demonstrated sufficiently without the manufacturers of the country opening their private ledgers. A Wheeling Nail Manufacturer . — A proper way to ascertain the cost of making nails would be to build a nail factory. [Mahoning Lodge, No. 1, Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel W T orkers, scrap- iron and steel, bar-iron, tin plates, tagger’s iron, iron ore, coal.'] Youngstown, Ohio, October 17, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : At a regular meeting of Mahoning Lodge, No. 1, Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers of the United States, the fol- lowing preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted, and or- dered transmitted to the Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treas- ury: Whereas the Hon. D. Manning has forwarded to the manufacturers of the country circular letters asking for information on the tariff ques- tion ; and Whereas to the best of our knowledge, none of these circulars have been sent to the different labor organizations, nor have they been asked for their views on this important subject ; and Whereas we believe that the workingmen are as vitally interested in this matter as their employers, as any measure that tends to benefit the manufacturer will be for the best interest of the workingmen ; and Whereas we believe that an injustice was done to workingmen of the country by the passage of some of the sections in u Schedule C. — Metals,” referring to scrap-iron and steel, bar iron, tin plates, &c. : Therefore, be it Resolved by this lodge in regular meeting assembled , That we ask for the following changes in those sections aforementioned, and we most respectfully and earnestly ask that the Secretary of the Treasury recom- mend the same to Congress : First , that a rate of $10 per ton be placed on all kinds of scrap and refuse iron and steel, fit only to be remanufactured. Second , that the rates on bar-iron be as follows : l-^- of a cent per pound, 1^ 0 - of a cent per pound, l-ft of a cent per pound. Tim d , that iron or steel sheets, or plates or taggers’ iron, commercially known as tin plates, be placed at 2J cents per pound. Fourth , that the duties on coal and ore remain as at present. Respectfully submitted. A. W. HUBLER, President. JAMES LYDON, Secretary. REVISION OE THE TARIFF. r> r* f> O i O [Tlie same.] - J Youngstown, Ohio, November 28, 1885. Bon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Sir : At a regular meeting of tbe above-mentioned lodge the follow- ing communication was presented, and, after being unanimously agreed to, was ordered transmitted to the Secretary of tbe Treasury : We are strongly in favor of the adoption of specific duties rather than the ad valorem system, believing, from all the information obtainable, that the laws under that system are evaded, and thereby the Govern- ment loses large amounts in the way of revenue, and the American manufacturer loses his markets, and the workingmen are deprived of the means of earning their living. Therefore we would urge upon Copgress that the change be made wherever necessary from ad valorem to specific rates, and especially do we desire that this be done on all classes of iron and steel, and of any article or articles of which they are the component parts of chief value. First. Bar and merchant iron of different sizes, as well as hoop-iron, samples of which have been forwarded to the Department, being manu- factured by Brown, Bonnell & Co., where the members of our lodge are employed. Cost of production, with the details, as suggested in the circular from the Department, from A to 5, inclusive, will no doubt be accurately an- swered by returns from the different manufacturers of the country. Regarding the importation of scrap-iron, on which we asked that a rate of $10 per ton be placed, we desire to say that whilst the amount of this article entered for consumption for the year ending June 80, 1884, is given as 51,245 tons, valued, at $718,329, it is generally be- lieved that the law on this article is in some manner evaded, and that a much larger quantity is imported than appears in the custom-house re- turns. Tbe production of a ton of bar-iron in England does not cost quite one- half what it does to produce one ton in the United States, tbe difference in the cost being caused largely by the difference in the wages paid in both countries for the labor performed in the production of a ton of iron. We submit the following list of prices paid in England and the United States: GREAT BRITAIN. North of England. Staffordshire. Puddling, per day, average $1 35 2 01 $1 35to$l 40 1 50 Muck rolling, per day Bar-mill rolling, per day 2 12 1 75 Heating, per day 1 55 1 40 Other labor employed in and around the mills from 2s., or 50 cents, to 3s. 6d., or 87 cents, per day. UNITED STATES. Pittsburgh prices : Puddling $5 00 Average earning per day 3 75 Muck rolling . . per ton . . 6‘2£ Rolling bar-mill •. do 63 Heating do 63 Other wages paid from $1.10 to $2.50 per day. Owing to the difference in the wages paid in both countries, and the further fact that the wages of the skilled workmen employed in the rolling mills of the country are 376 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. controlled by the price of bar-iron, we ask that the rates on the several sizes be placed at the figures named in our resolutions of October 17. In reference to the question of tin-plates, as we look at this subject it seems to us a matter of great importance not only to the iron and steel workers of the country, but is of equal importance to a large number of American citizens engaged in the mining of ore and coal, as well as those employed in the running of the blast furnaces, besides all of these men who would find employment in the handling and transportation of the different articles that enter into the production of tin-plates. In view, therefore, of the largeAntbre'sts involved in this matter we are decidedly in favor of placing the rates asked for in our resolutions on this article. We further wish to say that if the amount of tin-plates imported for the year ending June 30, 1884, and reported in custom- house returns as 527,881,321 pounds, valued at $18,931,071, had been manufactured by American citizens, and thereby have retained the money that was paid to the foreign manufacturer and importer, and have put it into circulation amongst our own people, we believe that it would have had a very decided tendency to relieve the depression that has so long existed in the iron business, by giving employment to a large num- ber of workingmen at remunerative wages, thereby enabling us to live in such a manner as becomes citizens of this country; and as we believe the legislation asked for in our resolutions would have a tendency to develop the tin-plate trade as well as other industries connected there- with, and thereby make us independent, in an industrial sense, of other nations, we therefore urge upon Congress the serious consideration of this question, believing that if that body will take the right view of the subject such measures will be enacted into law as will accomplish the end desired. We also wish to call the attention of Congress to the cotton-tie ques- tion, as being one of the inequalities existing under our present tariff laws. To us as practical men there does not appear to be any reason why a cotton-tie made out of hoop iron that is paying 1J cents per pound should, when cut up into lengths of eleven feet, with a few holes punched in it, and with a buckle strung or riveted thereon, be admitted at an ad valorem rate of 35 per cent., and we insist that Congress ought at the earliest opportunity, in justice both to the large number of workmen who would secure employment in the production of this article, as well as the manufacturer whose capital is being put into the mills and the shops for the production of cotton-ties, place the duty at 1J cents per pound in- stead of the present ad valorem rate of 35 per cent. Taking this view of the subject, we would urge upon Congress the necessity of prompt ac- tion. In conclusion, we further wish to say that, in our judgment, the best interests of the people at large are advancedwhen there is employ- ment for every person who wishes to labor, and when the men who have invested their capital in the industrial and agricultural enterprises of the country are receiving a just and fair recompense for the money in- vested. Believing this to be a correct statement, we are strongly op- posed to the placing of pig-iron ore and coal, or of any article or articles that can be produced or manufactured in this country, on the free list; and as we think that Congress can by favorable action very materially assist in bringing about the desirable condition of affairs already spoken of, and in order to accomplish this we ask that they take these views iuto consideration, and give us the relief asked for. Kespectfully submitted. THOMAS WILLIAMS.. MICHAEL SULLIVAN. JAMES LYDON. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 377 [Sub-Lodges of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of tbo United States — Cotton-ties, pig iron, speigdeisen, bar iron, tin-plates, cfc. ] Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States : Sir: Your circular letter of November 4, 1885, having been read and discussed in the various sub-lodges of the “Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel and Tin Workers of the United States,” said circular letter having been generally approved and commended, inasmuch as we the workingmen are afforded an excellent opportunity to inform Congress as to just such improvements as we desire, and as we think the condition of the iron, steel, and tin industries of the United States demands should be immediately adopted ; therefore committees were appointed by the sub-lodges to meet jointly and draft a reply to said circular letter: Now, as such committees, jointly assembled, we do most respectfully ask you to recommend to Congress the changes and amendments to the present tariff laws hereafter mentioned, and that you transmit this paper to Congress when assembled. (1) A specific duty of 1^ cents per pound should be placed on what is commercially known as “ cotton-ties.” (2) A duty of $10 per ton on pig iron ; also the same rate on spei- geleisen. (3) A duty of $10 per ton on old rails and scrap of all kinds of iron and steel. (4) On bar and merchant iron the rates should be l ^- cents, 1 3 ^ 0 - cents, lf 0 - cents per pound. (5) A specific duty of 2£ cents per pound on tin and terne plates and taggers’ iron. The fact is that the iron and steel industries of this country are de- pressed and languishing to-day owing to the sharp and successful com- petition of foreign manufacturers, made possible by the low rates of wages of the working people of Europe. Therefore, in order to protect and maintain the dignity and manhood of American citizens against the degraded and low priced labor of Europe, we again most respectfully ask your able assistance and co- operation in securing the necessary legislation by Congress at the next session. DANIEL MOSS, Chairman. ROGER EVANS, Secretary. GEO. D. GESSAMAN, MICHAEL SULLIVAN, THOMAS M. JONES, DAVID L. DAVIES, THOMAS WILLIAMS, JAMES LEYDEN, J. R. WHITE, JOHN JOHNSON, REES L. JONES, Joint Committe. 378 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The McKeesport Iron Works, sheet iron.'] Pittsburgh, November 6, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). O. : Dear Sir : We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your valued circular letter of date August 10 ultimo, which we understand has been so generally addressed to the various manufacturers of the United States, and which so emphatically refers to the abuses of the Government’s system of the collection of duties upon “imports,” as they may be and are “ largely evaded by undervaluation whenever the duties are levied ad valorem,” and asking for “information on this subject which may be useful to Congress in fiscal legislation, and as an aid in the improvement of the customs-revenue system.” As therein requested, we respectfully define ourselves as manufact- urers of sheet irons, more particularly of the best or highest grades known to the trade, and also of the speciality the patent planished sheet iron of commerce (or the American-Kussia) ; and although we deprecate any action of Congress just now which would likely lead to a protracted discussion of the present taritf, having for its purpose the reduction of duties, as might be induced by those opposed to the valued theory of protection to American or home industries, and thus disturbing again our now fairly improved condition of trade, even under its influences, with its several inequalities and unreasonably discriminating duties on several grades of sheet iron, as included in Schedule C (metals), which might simply and reasonably be changed $ yet you will permit us to enroll ourselves as most decidedly opposed to any ad valorem duty upon sheet irons of any description. Ad valorem duties invariably lead to undervaluations or fraud. Such duty (30 per cent.) now attaches to taggers irons. This sheet iron is a high grade, mostly cleaned or pickled or cold rolled of thinest gauges, Nos. 30 to 40 W. G., inclusive, and thus necessarily of high cost, in foreign or English markets nearly double the price of common sheet iron (singles), yet the valuation attaching to such imports of taggers iron, as reported through the Bureau of Statistics (United States) for the several past years, exhibits a much lower valuation than sheet irons (ordinary) of gauges Nos. 25 to 29, W. G., inclusive, which fact clearly demonstrates the fraud prepetrated on the Government and the clear purpose of those importers and foreign manufacturers who have always strenuously worked to maintain this only ad valorem duty attaching to “ sheet irons.” For several years the duty collected on these high-priced irons has been only about cents per pound, when common sheet irons have paid a duty of l-^- and 1J cents per pound, according to gauge, up to and including No. 29, W. G. As on a parity with other sheet irons, taggers irons should be dutia- ble at about two cents per pound (specific). Again, these irons are usually shipped boxed, and it is quite well understood that a further fraud is frequently practiced by mixing or packiug sheet irons, with rates of duty of 1-^ cents or 1 J cents per pound, with these in such way as may foil the ordinary inspection of United States Examiners. Ad valorem duties as a rule afford no just or adequate protection to American labor as against the foreign element with their lowest values, as when such govern the competition with American products and prices are the lowest the duties are then most minimized, when truly they should be most stable, fixed, and protective. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 379 This inequality of duty, as we argue, has prevented the manufacture iu this country of these grades of iron. The high grades of pickled or cleaned or cold-rolled sheet-irons are not comparatively or sufficiently well protected, with' the extra duty above common sheet-irons of oue-fourtli cent per pound (attaching), in- asmuch as the present law (Schedule 0) requires this duty to attach only when the two or several processes of pickling, or cleaning and cold roll- ing, are discovered, or known in an expert sense, by the examiner, either process, however, determining improved or advanced condition of manu- facture, and such extra expense of labor as to warrant a higher duly than on common sheet-irons — to which classification such irons now are usually relegated. The interpolation of the word u or” for “ and ” in the description of these irons, between the words u cleaned ” and “ cold-rolled,” would ad- just this great inequality of duty, as now generally collected. The duties on sheet-irons, under the present tariff laws, are only barely sufficient to permit the manufacture of most grades in this coun- try, as against the foreign competition, and to insure the present rates of wages to our workmen, which are none too liberal for the life and improved social condition, through such as is most fortunately bestowed on them, on the American basis of advancement in life and the “equal- ity of opportunity,” which our institutions and methods further insure to the “ army of workers.” We could enlarge specifically upon the vast benefits of the system of protection, as even solar embraced in our present tariff duties, and show how particularly the consumer has been benefited by lower prices than when the needed manufactures were mostly imported ; but in no case can we so distinctly emphasize it as in the matter of governing prices of imported Russia sheet-iron with which we have competed for many years, with the patent planished sheet-iron so successfully, by means of fair, equitable, protective duty not co-equal, however, with that attaching to other irons on an ad valorem basis. The prices of this imported iron to the consumer, have ranged for the last several years 30 to 50 per cent, lower, than such commanded before the successful competition of the American goods*, and whilst this benefit has so distinctly been assured the fact exists that the duty has in no sense proved prohibitive, as the importations of the foreign goods have varied but little from year to year, as the United States statistics prove, this case simply showing what the establishment of such indus- tries in this country usually proves; namely, the employment of home labor at good wages, a guarantee of lower prices, forcing only lesser profits, either upon the importers or non-producer, or upon the foreign manufacturer. This high grade of glanced-iron was only formerly, exclusively, made in Russia, and controlled iu this country by a syndicate of buyers, and is, as also the American patent planished iron, in the most advanced and expensive state of manufacture and finish, through labor alone; and the competition of the foreign article must result disastrously with- out the now only fair protection, when we can assert that the relative wages paid in Russia and our country stand for skilled workmen, in about the ratio of 80 cents (the very highest) per day in Russia as against $4, $5, and $6 per day in America ; this American product is supplied at a cheap value to the distributing merchants throughout the United States, thus largely adding its support to the inter-State commerce of our country. The senior member of our firm (Mr. W. D. Wood) has just returned 380 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. from a “tour of Europe,” being one of thorough inspection of the sheet- iron mills of England, France, and Belgium, &c., and his absence must plead our execuse for delayed answer to your valued letter. His investigation developed nothing so fully as the fact of the great disparity of wages for skilled and unskilled labor, existing and paid in those countries and our own, particularly about the sheet-iron mills at Huy, Liege, and in England, a large amount of the unskilled work in either country being unfortunately done by women and children. The highest wages per day for skilled labor, in France and Belgium, being about 6 francs or $1.20 per day ; for unskilled, from lh francs to 2£ francs or 30centsto 50 cents per day $ in England about in the same ratio ; say shillings as to francs. The lowest wages for unskilled labor about ou several mills is $1.30 per day and skilled labor about as noted above. As manufacturers of sheet-irons we are particularly interested in the development of the tin and terne plate manufacture in this country. Tin and terne plates of commerce being but “sheet-iron” coated with tin aud tin and lead, and would respectfully urge such adequate and in- creased rate of duty as would insure this industry to this country, but as this interest and question has been ably represen ted and discussed through a communication of the “Tin Plate Association of the United States” to you we are content to add our indorsement of same. We have the honor to remain, very respectfully, your most obedient, W. I). WOOD & CO. (limited), W. D. WOOD, Chairman. f Phelps, Dodge & Co., metals . ] New York, August 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular letter of the 31st July, we beg to inclose herewith a list of the leading articles imported by us, with their present duties. With the few exceptions noted, these duties are now all “specific.” Specific duties . — We are convinced of the great advantage to the Gov- ernment and to the importers of simple specific duties on all metals. They are easily collected and cannot be evaded except by direct fraud in weight. Under the present onerous and ill-regulated Treasury laws, it is im- possible, on many goods, to collect “ad valorem” duties with fairness either to the Government or the importer, or to arrive at what is a just market value. Many goods are not kept in stock in foreign countries iu large quan- tities, and must be contracted for months previous to shipment, in order to give time for manufacture. During this interval, in markets constantly fluctuating, the selling value of the goods may largely change. But by law the invoice must be at exact cost , whether higher or lower than the value of the day. This the exporter swears to, and the consul certifies that this cost is present market value — often a manifest ab- surdity. On arrival these goods are again valued by the appraiser, ou whose decision duties are levied, without reference to cost or to the consular certificate. If his decision places present value above contract cost, prices must REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 381 be advanced; but if, owing to change in market, present value is far below cost, no allowance is made, and the importer suffers not only from the loss on his contract, but from the consequent increased duty. This applies only to the American importer, as foreign agents can import on consignment account at value at time of shipment. In the average fluctuations of trade the times of decline about equal those of advance, so that American importers in regular business are unfairly handicapped. Prices of manufactured goods are affected by so many shifting con- ditions that it is not possible to arrive at what is market value. The quantity purchased, the time of delivery, the proportion of certain kinds or sizes more profitable to make than others, the competition in the market to which the goods are to go, or the using up of accumulated raw material, all go into the bargain made, and the nominal prices asked by parties holding small lots of like goods do not give a fair standard of purchasing value. Consular certificates . — On all goods with specific duty these consular certificates are useless, except as confirming weights and for statistics. Both of these ends could be better accomplished on arrival of goods here. In the present rapid movement of goods by steamers, which load and unload in a few hours, the necessity of preparing triple invoices and attending at consuls’ offices at special hours, often causes the losing of important mails, involves the necessity of principals or authorized agents remaining always in the cities where offices are located, aud causes the most onerous and vexatious delays and large expense, with- out any advantage to the Government. We believe no other Government imposes so heavy and burdensome a tax upon those who are so unfortunate as to be engaged in foreign business. We trust some modification can be made in the law requiring princi- pals themselves to attend at custom-houses to make oaths as to in- voices. This is a most onerous tax upon time in many cases; aud if the owner’s oath is necessary, it should be allowed to be taken before notaries duly authorized. We fully understand the wisdom and necessity of every proper and effective precaution in collecting the revenue; but there are still many checks, delays, small fees, and expenses to importers, the result of an- tiquated laws and old usages, which greatly embarrass the transaction of business and delay the officers of the Government as well as the mer- chants. These add unnecessarily to the cost of all the imported articles used by the entire people, and add so much additional weight to our country in its industrial competition with the rest of the world. In the thoughtful examination you are giving to the whole revenue service, we trust you will carefully consider these matters. We are, dear sir, with great respect, very truly yours, PHELPS, DODGE & CO. Tin plates, terne plates, taggers tin. ( Duty specific, 1 cent per pound.) [Paragraph 151, Schedule C, act of March 3,1883.] These articles form the*raw material of more widely spread and diversified indus- tries than almost anything imported, and the rate of duty, now equal to 30 per cent* ad valorem, is a very oppressive one. 382 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Daring war times tlie rate was only 25 per cent, ad valorem. In 1872 it was changed to 15 per cent., and in 1874 to 15 per cent, less 10 per cent. When the change was made to specific it was intended to make a rate per pound about equal to the then ad valorem duty. The great improvements and cheapening of cost of manufacture have so reduced price that present rate is equal to 30 per cent., and far beyond anything intended. A duty of one-half cent per pound would be fully equal to former ad valorem rate. From these goods are manufactured the kitchen utensils and the stove and house- hold furniture of the whole country and the camp outfit of miners and lumbermen. They are made into roofs and gutters of houses, and used for cans and boxes for the packing of spices, chemicals, lard, petroleum, fish, vegetables, oysters, and condensed milk. During the last ten years the packing in cans made of tin plate of fruits, vegetables, and fish has developed in every section of the country, giving to the farmer and to the fisherman an opportunity to build up a business in the cheap food used in all house- holds and by all workingmen. Sheet iron or steel, polished or glanced. ( Duty specific, 2% cents per pound. ) [Paragraph 152, Schedule C, act March 3, 1883.] This affects, in fact, only the polished sheet iron imported from Russia and com- mercially known as “ Russia sheet iron.” The rate is an enormous one, equal to 36 to 40 per cent, of its value. It is used almost entirely by people in moderate circum- stances for stoves and by locomotive builders. This great tax benefits only one manufacturer, with a limited number of employes and is most oppressive and extreme. This duty shoul d not exceed 1 cent per pound. Ordinary sheet iron. [Paragraph 152, Schedule C, act March 3, 1883.] Duty ranges from 1.1 to 1.5 cents per pound; is equal to 50 per cent, of foreign valuo and virtually prohibitory. Zinc in blocks or pigs, commercially known as spelter. ( Duty specific, 1£ cents per pound.) [Schedule C, act March 3, 1883.] This forms, with copper, the basis of brass. The rate of duty is about equal to 40 per cent, ad valorem, and, with the large use of brass for common purposes, is very extreme. Sheet zinc. ( Duty specific, 2-£ cents per pound.) [Schedule C, act March 3, 1883.] This is equal to 65 to 70 per cent, ad valorem. This extreme tax benefits only two manufacturers, and the loss falls almost entirely upon people of moderate means, its principal use being for use under cheap stoves. Black taggers iron. [Paragraph 151, Schedule C, act March 3, 1883.] The duty on this article, which is now 30 per cent, ad valorem, is most difficult to appraise fairly, as its use is variable and its manufacture subject to changing condi- tions. It should be made “ specific,” and 1 cent per pound would be about equal to present average rate. As the only use of this article is as a raw material — for small manufacturers requiring much baud labor — the rate is very high. ltegulus of antimony. [Schedule C, act March 3, 1883.] Duty 10 per ceut. ad valorem. This is a simple metal, coming in slabs or cakes, and should he made “specific.” About three fourths cent’ per pound would be equal to present ad valorem rate. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 383 [Wilkins Trick, tinplate . - ] Maes-ydderwen, Hubbard, Ohio, Augus t — , . Hon. Secretary Manning, Treasury Department , Washington , D. C. : Sir: In April last I addressed the President on the subject of a sufficient tariff protection to enable the successful manufacture of tin plates in this country, and for which purpose, being an old and prac- tical iron and tin plate maker, I have located in America, her natural- ized citizen, and to which communication, through his private secre- tary, Mr. Lamont, I had the honor of a reply stating that the sug- gestions 1 offered were read with interest and would meet with due attention. With the prospect of an amended tariff bill being introduced in next Congress, I am constrained to respectfully direct your attention to this subject; and it will be seen by you that the advantages which would accrue to the state from the establishment of a tin-plate industry are of paramount importance and worthy to engage the best efforts of the philanthropist, as the means of securing enhanced measures of comfort in the workman’s social life, in leveling up the status of his position physically and intellectually, and in direct contrast to the foreign policy of debasement with pauper wages ; together, also, with its politico- economic aspect, in wresting to ourselves all accessories conducing to the stability and prosperity of the country through her internal means of independence, and reliance on her resources to meet all domestic requirements; primarily, afterwards, to become the entrepot of. the world for tin plates, changing the venue of production from a compara- tively insignificant Welsh patch of the world’s surface, possessing no immediate or peculiar advantages for the purpose, to our own soil. America’s resources have been proven in the past, and down to the present valuable discoveries of tin mines in Dakota and Virginia. There is absolutely not anything required incapable of being furnished from the treasures of her own laboratory to enable the manufacture of tin plates, and placing her unsubject to exotic production. That which has now to be combated is the impracticability of profitably making the article whilst maintaining wage-rates as now ruling for similar class work with the present tariff protection; and certainly, sir, from a statesman’s point of view it must be perfectly patent to yourself that to reduce the skilled working population to the wage platform of continental nations denotes dire disaster and national retrogres- sion. To dilate in extenso upon the benefits which would permeate all classes and sections of the community in the establishing a tin-plate industry by the retention of capital at home, which is now diverting to foreign markets in purchasing media, would be a supererogatory effort in this place; therefore the quantities of material consumed, &c., I pass over in addressing you, merely remarking that the latitude it embraces is far wider in reality than appears on the surface of thought. A matter of serious importance to notice, and one of the many to converters of tin plates, is defective plates arising out of the inferior quality of the goods largely sent into this country and made expressly for the American market, the perpetration of which injury will be pre- vented when the user and the maker can be brought into personal contact, those plates only being esteemed which are honestly made, and free from the deleterious stuff now adopted at most factories as a flux, by reason of its cheapness ? in lieu of palm oil ? and is the cause to 384 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. which cau be attributed cases of poisoning arising from the consumption of food packed in cases made from these plates. As it rests at present the importing-houses disclaim all responsibility, unless under guarantee of specific grades and brands, for which the buyer is unfairly mulcted in an extra price. We can produce a better quality of tin plate in America than is now being imported. The specious argument against a protective policy advanced by our captious critics and self interested opponents to the manufa cture of tin plate resolves itself into the false deduction of a consequent increased purchasing price extracted from the buyer. These people claim that to augment the protective duty and the power of paying decent wages to workmen is the imposition of an injustice to the converter of plates in inflated values, which must necessarily re- bound on the general consumer of their products. This at first sight would appear to be the natural result, but unfortunately for their prem- ises it is chimerical; and let me therefore at once seek to dispel its lodgment in a reflective and impartial mind, and I cannot proceed in a more conclusive manner than submitting to the arbitrament of facts and figures as nearly as can be obtained. The American Commission instituted for the purpose of considering the question of import duty recommended a tariff of 2-^- cents a pound, being 1 cents iucrease on the present duty of 1 cent per pound. Now the quantity imported for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, we find to be, as given in the statistics furnished by the American Tinned Plate Association and copied by the press, as 507,894,750 pounds, or equivalent to 4,702,729 boxes of I. C. substance tin plates, weighing 108 per box. The consumer has paid for these tin plates, according to the statement furnished, a sum of $30,000,000, or $0.38 average per box (which would appear to be correct, taking the average selling price for all descriptions extending over this period).. Then the value of these at prime cost in Liverpool is given at $18, 182,637 Or $3.87 per box average for charcoals and coles. To this add the amount of tariff duty sought by the commission of 2.2 cents per pound on the imported quantity as given above 11, 173, 684 29 356 321 Or $0.24 per box, being the difference of $643,079, which is equiva- lent to 14 cents per box alreadg paid by the consumer in excess of the tariff sought to be obtained by the commission for the protection of the industry. . Again : The consumer pays for his plates a sum of $30, 000, 000 The prime cost of which in Liverpool is $18, 182,637 00 The present duty on which at 1 cent per pound is 5,078,947 56 23,261,584 A difference of 6,738,416 The ocean carriage on these plates, with insurance, can be taken at 12 cents a box, leaving the balance of this $6,738,416 to the merchants, brokers, and jobbers, for expenses and profits, the former maintaining extensive establishments in Liverpool and Loudon, with their staffs of clerks and dependents, together with their sister houses in New York and Philadelphia, &c., all of which the consumer supports to the direct detriment of a home production, and, after all, often obtaining goods de- fective in quality, unsuitable in finish, and faulty in specification. 1 am esteemed in Wales an expert in accountantship, and fully acquainted from most extended experiences with minute details of manufacturing REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 385 cost accounts, so that which I have to advance on this head of the sub- ject may therefore be accepted ex cathedra. For the last two years I have been engaged in compiling information, with the result of having perfected a series of manufacturing costs on tin plate in this country, framed on the bases of American rates of wages, interest on capital, and other cognate matters appertaining to accurate cost accounts, and from which I am prepared to demonstrate the neces- sity of a further protection to an extent that shall inflict injury or in- justice on no one, but benefit all in enabling the industry to be success- fully inaugurated and permanently planted with us; and I respectfully suggest, sir, that to effect this purpose a graduated revision of the ex- isting tariff may with propriety be adopted, instead of the existing duty of a cent a pound, which is exacted upon the superior quality and finished tin-plate equally with the lowest grades, and whereon the cost of production and merchantable values differ, submitting for your care- ful consideration the following graduation as meeting all the require- ments of the case : Cents. The duty on imported coke-iron T plates to he per pound. . If The duty on oharcoal-iron and steel T. plates to be (together with all their trade sizes and crosses duly tinned) per pound.. On outsize tin-plates and their crosses do 2 $ On tin taggers, both iron and steel do 2 \ I am disposed to supplement this letter with a few observations upon the conditions which would inevitably follow an introduction of a free- trade policy on tin-plates in this country. Consumers would be placed under the dire necessity of taking any description of plate which could be most advantageously made with regard to the greatest margin of profit, without manufacturers entertaining the least consideration in filling their specific wants ; as it is at present, most tin-plates have to be reassorted before being used, and large quantities are cast aside as unfitted for the particular purposes intended, with the consequent loss entailed upon the user, and for which he is utterly powerless in obtain- ing redress ; the purchasing price of a box of these plates does not therefore represent its actual cost, the value of the article being con- siderably increased by the rejection of a large percentage of the plates from this reason. The introduction of this industry being of such vast national importance, it becomes most essential to institute a complete and exhaustive inquiry into the amount of tariff necessary for its legiti- mate culture and support against foreign importation, and which must be considered from an independent aud non-partisan standpoint ; per- fectly free from bias, and abrogating the possibilities of creating monop- olies and syndicates to the detriment of the general weal in its in- stitution — a tariff perfected in honesty of purpose, fearlessly and righteously determined. And to this consummation, I, sir, and those with me, confidently repose our implicit trust in the President aud yourself. If my assistance would be deemed of advantage in the consideration of this subject, together with any data I can furnish bearing upon the experiences of to day in Welch tin plate making, and American costs for the production of the article, &e., they are respectfully at your dis- posal, and 1 have the honor to remain, sir, Your most obedient and humble servant, WILKINS THICK, Patentee and Tin-Plate Manufacturer , and late Hon. Secretary of the South Wales Masters Tin-Plate Association, England. S. Ex. 72 25 386 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Hall & Carpenter, tinplate and metals . ] Philadelphia, July 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: In reply to your circular letter of 24th instant we would say that an experience of many years has taught us that a specific duty is decidedly to be preferred to that of an ad valorem. Not only to prevent undervaluation, but also to obviate, in a large measure, the difficulty of ascertaining their correct value at the time and place of shipment. The merchandise we have imported has been almost exclusively tin and terne plates, which formerly paid an ad valorem but now a specific duty. The change has been so beneficial that we should regret exceedingly to have to return to an ad valorem duty. Respectfully, HALL & CARPENTER. [The American Tinned Plate Association, tin plate.'] Pittsburgh, August — , 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , Z>. G\ : Dear Sir: The course you are pursuing in seeking information, the possession of which will enable you to advocate an intelligent simplifi- cation of the tariff, in substituting specific for ad valorem duties, &c., is very commendable. There can be no just reason why all duties on imported articles should not be specific, wherever possible of application. With clear, apt, and distinct descriptions and classification of the merchandise, and specific duties thereon, fraud, or evasion of the law, would be almost impossible. I think, too, that the tariff laws should be so amended as to make the punishment of offenders speedy, prompt, and sure. My affiliations with the tariff are those of a workingman, and as such I am much interested in the practical methods you have adopted of arriving at facts . Workingmen, as you know, place but little confi- dence in anything attempted, based on the theoretic phenomena of this subject, or indeed any other subject, but prefer rather to deal with facts, or things as they find them. The depressed condition of trade, together with the great changes wrought by which mechanical labor is fast taking the place of manual labor of late years, and the consequent increasing surplus of idle labor, is now becoming a very serious ques- tion. It is to be observed that mechanical appliances and special tools are being applied much more extensively and rapidly in manufactures than in agricultural and raw-materials production, hence on r oiirplus labor is mainly that of manufactures. Can we find any way in which to find employment for this surplus labor? Some say, yes, by our work ingmen going and settling on farms. This, however, would be only a partial remedy, for even as it now is we have a surplus of agricultural products to meet the demands of the home and foreign markets. Others say that our surplus labor can be employed by an extension of indus- tries in manufactures, that is home production of what we are now REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 387 importing in the form of manufactured articles. This is the view gen- erally prevailing among the workingmen of our country. I will not, however, intrude upon your valuable time in discussing this question in a letter like this, but shall hold myself in readiness, at your pleasure, should you desire it, to present our arguments iu detail for your consideration. For the present 1 simply lay the statement be- fore you. As an advocate of an extension of diversified industry, I represent that of tin and terne plate and taggers’ tin manufacture, now nil in the United States. The causes for this are explained in a pamphlet 1 have prepared, a copy of which I forward you with this letter. We are now, and have been for several years, endeavoring to have the duty on tin plates, &c., made consistent with that of most other articles in the metal schedule. It is somewhat remarkable that this industry should be discriminated against, as it is one representing the highest and most intelligent workers in iron and steel, and, singular as it may appear, the only industry in England and Wales that have increased iu product during the depression of the iastfew years; in brief, it is the only pros- perous industry in iron and steel in that country. %ke United States is the largest consumer of tinplates iu the world. We consume nearly two-thirds of the world’s production in tin plates. It is the largest ar- ticle in our list of importations in iron and steel. If we add tb it our importations in sheets, including taggers’ iron, articles of precisely the same line of manufacture, it would be just one-half of our imports in iron and steel for the year ending June 30, 1884'. It needs no argument to show that home production of these articles, in the employment given to labor and capital, would be of incalculable relief and benefit to our iron and steel industry iu their present de- pressed condition. To do this we must have a protective duty on tin plates adequate to the higher wages that must necessarily be paid in this country above those now paid iu England and Wales. This duty must be in harmony with those now existing, which are of a protective character. To form an accurate idea of the extent of duty needed I will briefly state the process of manufacture, dealing with the subject from the bar iron or steel to the finished plates. In the first place we have the bar iron, sheared in pieces about fifteen inches long. These pieces are put in charges into a reverberatory furnace, heated to a bright red, put through the chilled rolls, and rolled thick five times ; reheated and rolled in singles twice; doubled, reheated, and rolled three times; doubled, reheated, and rolled twice; doubled, reheated, and rolled in eighths twice, until they are stretched to the required length and thickness. They are then sheared, then opened, and then put through the process of black pickling, i. e., immersed iu heated di- lute sulphuric acid. The sheets are next annealed for from twelve to twenty-four hours. After this they are cold rolled, so as to give the plates a perfectly flat set and well polished surface; they are then an- nealed and pickled the second time, then scoured with sand. They are uow ready for the tin-house. The tinmen now pass the sheets through a grease pot, then through a pot of molten tin covered with palm oil. They next pass to the washmen, who pass them through another pot of molten tin, then through rolls, after which they are rubbed clean, assorted, and boxed. This brief statement shows clearly that tin plates are a very far advanced manufacture in iron and steel The cost of production of tin plates in this country would, of course, depend upon location of manufacturing establishment, varying accord- ing to conditions and advantages. But as we do not now manufacture 388 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. any tin plates whatever, it is imposible to give an accurate statement of costs. Nor is it necessary that I attempt to give an estimated cost, for I have no doubt you have received costs of production of ordinary iron or steel bars. Tin plates are sheets rolled out of bars of about 7 inches by § inch. I will, therefore, consider the item of wages and costs on this occasion from the bars (generally called tin bars) to the finished plates. I give wages as now paid in England and Wales. Those for United States are in accordance with the scales of the Amalgamated Association, and in such cases as the association prices do not provide for I have entered estimated wages, based on that class of labor nearest approximative to that of tin plate manufacture: Occupation. Rolling Doubling Furnaceman Catcher Shearer Weighing Roll-turning Pickling Cold-rolling Catching Opening Annealing Helper Tinman W ashman Cradler Boxor Assorter Lighting fires Engineer Fitter Carpenter Smith Striker Mason Laboring Tin-houso manager Mill manager Unit of work. W ages. Per 100 boxes . do do do do do do do do do do do Per week Per 100 boxes. do do do Per week do do Per day do do . do do do Per week do Included in rolling. t Included in annealing. would be done by young men and boys in this country, work is very hard and rough : Occupation. Unit of work. Openers j Per 100 boxes Pickorsoff j Per day Scourers do Dippers j do Dusters do Carriers do Reclosers do England and Wales. United States. $6 87 $23 00 5 51 11 05 5 20 10 10 3 02 (*) 2 17 11 00 48 1 08 48 l 34 1 46 4 25 1 21 3 60 20 56 18$ 50 2 43 10 25 (t) 6 00 "1200 6 00 12 00 2 00 5 00 1 01 2 40 9 72 18 60 4 38 9 00 G 00 12 00 1 52 2 75 97 2 25 1 52 3 00 73 1 25 1 52 62 3 00 1 12$ 14 50 | 25 00 15 79 12, 000 00 JPer year. most of which Some of the Wages. 1 England and j Wales. United States. $1 65 $3 50 48 75 48 75 48 1 00 36 75 24 50 48 1 00 According to these figures the amount of wages paid per box in England and Wales would be about G2 cents and in the United States about $1.87 per box — an excess of $1.25 per box. You will thus see REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 389 tliat adding the duty per pouud on bars to this excess in wages would be nearly 2J cents per pouud. A box weighs 108 pounds — i. e., 14 x 20 — 112 sheets. This ought to make it clear that the duty on tin plates, to be consist- ent with that of bars, based on a difference in wages only , should be at least 2J cents per pound; but to cover all exigencies we claim a duty of 2J cents per pound. Such a duty would be fully protective, and make it absolutely safe for capital to invest in the manufacture of tin plates. The greatest obstacle for us to overcome is the idea prevailing that an advance in the duty would entail a corresponding advance in the ; price of tin plates. Such an idea as this is based solely on the expect- ancy that with the higher duty we would still be dependent upon Eng- land for our supply of tin plates; it precludes altogether the idea of home manufacture. It would be folly on our part to advocate a pro- tective duty, or indeed any duty at all, under existing circumstances, unless we anticipated home production of tin plates. The fact that we have no tin-plate manufacture at all at the present time, and, again, that the duty on tin plates is inconsistent and inadequate as compared with other articles of iron and steel, is plainly the cause of this. No strouger evidence is wanted to show the need of a higher duty. With a duty such as I have mentioned home production would spring into life, and shortly afterward home competition would control the price of tin plates. I, therefore, earnestly petition you to give this subject serious thought and attention. It is certain that the wheels of industry cannot be put in active motion, only by finding employment for idle labor. This again cannot be done but by opening up new industry. Hoping you can favorably consider this very important question, I am, respectfully, yours, JOHN JARRETT, Secretary . [Gummey, Spering, Iugram & Co., tinplate .] Philadelphia, July 27, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning-, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C.: Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your communication of the 24th in- stant in reference to the tariff and the suggested changes. The principal items of importation in our line are tin plates, terne plates, taggers tin, which were for many years admitted on ad valorem rates, which varied materially at different times, until the abuse of this method became so glaring as to compel the Department to call the attention of Congress to alter the same and to insist upon u specific rates,” and as a result the subsequent tariff made the rate l^ cents per pound, which rate continued up to the passage of the act of Feb- ruary, 1883, when the rate was reduced to 1 cent per pound; and this plan of fixing the rate is really the only equitable one that could be adopted, and in our line it has worked to the entire satisfaction of the merchants as well as the Government, while it has reduced the oppor- tunity of defrauding the Government to the smallest possible chance. If the importer intended to defraud the Government it could only be accomplished by collusion with dishonest officials, as the weights of boxes of tin plates of the same size and gauge are uniformly the same. There is one objection to the present tariff rate on tin plates, terne 390 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. plates, and taggers tin, and that is that the rate is exces ive in view of the fact that all these goods are imported and none manufactured in this country, as you will see by recent investigation made by Special Agent Hines, fully set forth as part of his report contained on file in the Secretary of the Treasury’s Office, which dates December 11, 1884. Tin plate is an article extensively consumed in this country in many branches of the manufacturing industries, prominent among which are the large dairy interests, the canned goods’ interests, shipment of pe- troleum, lard, &c., who are obliged to pay on this material an equiva- lent of over 35 per cent, the present rate ; and in this connection we would suggest the propriety of a reduction of the specific rate of duty on tin plates, terne plates, and taggers tin, to at least f cents per pound, which would still further increase the consumption and virtually in- crease the Government revenues from this source, as well as being more equitable to all consumers. The increased consumption would result from being enabled to use this material for purposes from which at the present rate it is debarred. Permit us to congratulate you upon the most excellent and complete method which you have adopted for obtaining information which will prove invaluable to you in dealing with this most difficult subject. Your letter certainly exhibits a clear business comprehension of the matter which is alike creditable to yourself and valuable to the Gov- ernment, and you have adopted the only true and practicable method of ascertaining the truth. Truly, yours, &c., GUMMEY, SPERING, INGRAM & CO. [The McCullough Iron Company, sheet iron and taggers iron.] Philadelphia, August 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Mannings : Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C\: Dear Sir: Replying to your circular of August 8, in reference to the tariff, we are very glad to be afforded a hearing upon the subject, and we take up that portion of it first in which we are directly interested, viz, the tariff upon sheet iron. The present law places a duty on sheet iron as follows : Cents per pound. Not thinner than No. 20 wire-gauge 1.1 Nos. 21 to 25 wire-gauge 1.2 Nos. 26 to 29 wire-gauge 1.5 Thinner than No. 29 (taggers), 30 per cent, ad valorem (about 1 cent per pound). Here is a palpable instance of the very thing at which your.circular appears to be aimed, i. e. y an ad valorem duty that is fatal to a home industry, injurious to kindred branches of manufacture, and «a source of fraud against the revenue of the United States. The duty of 30 per cent, ad valorem on taggers iron, on a true valuation, is never more than 1 cent per pound, and in general does not amount to more than three- fourths of a cent per pound. Advices from Liverpool, freshly received, show the actual present equivalent of 30 per cent, ad valorem on this article varies from 02 to 87 cents per 100 pounds. This prohibits the profitable manufacture in the United States of sheet or taggers iron thinner than No. 29 wire gauge. It acts injuriously upon the sheet-iron manufacturers here, because it enables foreign taggers iron to be sold at a less price than the lighter gauges of sheet iron, thus taking the place REVISION OF THE TARIFF 391 of American iron, which would have been used for the same purposes if the tariff were equably adjusted, and if a proportionate specific duty were placed upon taggers iron, instead of an ad valorem rate of only 30 per cent. We mean a rate proportionate to that upon sheet irou of heavier gauges. This ad valorem duty affords au opportunity for the improper impor- tation, under the guise of taggers, of sheet iron, even as heavy as No. 26, cut into small sheets and boxed like taggers, thus paying only 30 per cent, ad valorem, or less than 1 cent per pound, instead of 1J cents, t Lie proper duty. This was done quite extensively at one time. The most serious injury occurs from the importation of No. 30 sheet iron, which is classified as taggers iron, but should properly be classed as sheet iron. It can be sold at such a low juice, owing to the insuffi- cient duty, that it supplants our own iron to a most hurtful extent. This No. 30 iron is not taggers iron in reality, although classed as such, but it is practically sheet iron, and should pay duty as sheet iron. The difference between No. 29 (the lightest gauge classed as sheet iron) and No. 30 taggers is indistinguishable to the unaided eye. Both are rolled iu the same way, and may be used for identical purposes, and yet tins No. 30 is admitted at 30 per cent, ad valorem, or 1 cent, per pound at the utmost, while the American makers of No. 29 sheet iron can barely protect themselves in its manufacture with a duty of 1 J cents j>er jiound. Moreover, the inequality in the rates for sheet iron is so great that they become an absurdity in respect to taggers, which will at a glance be seen to be utterly disproportionate to a fair basis from the following: The tariff places a proper duty (albeit an insufficient one) of l.L cents per pound on sheet iron up to No. 20 gauge; then an increased duty, 1.2 cents, on thinner gauges up to No. 25, and a still larger duty, 1.5 cents, on the still thinner gauges up to No. 29 inclusive. Bear in mind that the cost of making these irons increases directly with the thinness. Now when it comes to the thinnest and most costly of all, No. 30 and upwards, or taggers iron, it gives an ad valorem rate of 30 j)er cent., equivalent to not more than 1 cent jjer pound. So the schedule stands thus: Cents per pound. Cheapest gauge, No. 20 1.1 Next costlier, No. 25 1.2 Still uio^e costly, No. 29 1.5 Most costly of all, No. 30 1 It is evident from this that the low duty on No. 30 and taggers iron was not made up from any logical or reasonable standpoint, and as it now stands is very much to the detriment of the manufacturers of this country. We are here afforded an opportunity to simplify the tariff and correct a glaring inequality by changing this ad valorem rate to a specific, and we beg to suggest that a proper schedule of rates, and one that would aid in affording relief to the sheet-iron manufacturers of this country, would be the Tariff Commission’s recommendation, which in this re- spect was fair, reasonable, and proportionate, as follows: Cents per pound. Not thinner than No. 20 wire-gauge ].3 No. 2J to 25 wire-gauge 1.5 No. 26 to 29 wire- gauge 1 . 7 Thinner than No. 29 (taggers) 1.9 This is a just and regular increase from the heaviest to the thiniiest; the cheapest to the costliest. 392 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. TIN PLATES. The sheet-iron manufacturers of this country are very seriously in- terfered with by the low duty upon tin plates. Instead of 1 cent per pound, as at present, the duty should be not less than 2£ cents per pound. Then English tin plates and tinned sheets would not supplant American sheet iron to the extent they now do, or, if tin-plates were so used, they would be American made, in the manufacture of which American sheet-iron makers could engage. You will doubtless receive communications on this subject from oth- ers, and I will content myself with saying that were Congress to grant an adequate duty upon tin plates it would do more to enhance the pros- perity of the country than any other measure in that line that I can think of. If Americans could be permitted to manufacture the tin plates used in our own country alone, and if the foreign monopoly of this manufacture, which the United States Congress maintains by means of the present low duty, could be broken up, it would develop into prosperous and valuable mines the many tin bearing lodes and veins of tin ore recently discovered in the West; it would make a de- mand for hundreds of thousands of tons of iron ore, pig iron, and coal annually, which now are all mined, smelted, and manufactured in Eng- land, to the profit of the English workman and the English manufact- urer, instead of the American. We remain, with much respect, your obedient servants, McCullough Iron Company. HENKY WHITELEY, Treasurer . [The Eastern Iron Ore Association, iron ore.] Port Henry, IS. Y., # October 31, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : In answer to your circular desiring information relative to the evasion of duties, &c., and the cost of domestic products, I have to say, in behalf of the Eastern Iron Ore Association, covering* all the territory east of the Alleghany Mountains, and producing over 2,000,000 tons of iron ore per annum, and employing at least 5,000 men, that we most respectfully protest against our industry being placed upon the free list, for the following reasons: First. Because we believe in the principles of protection to all indus- tries, and it is not right to withhold it from any one to benefit others, and that the precedent of putting in raw materials tree is sure to lead to the disruption of the entire protective fabric. If ore is placed there this year, pig iron becomes a raw material for next year, and so on. Secondly. The duty on iron ore is a specific one and is not thus sub- ject to undervaluations. Thirdly. The present duty of seventy-five cents is not excessive as compared with other industries, and it brings in the ore so cheaply now that few domestic ores can compete with it over a large territory. Fourthly. The supply of native ores is everywhere abundant, and in no instances are exorbitant prices asked. Fifthly. The class of labor employed in mining is of the lowest grade, ryul in consequence has to come in contact with the very cheapest labor of Europe and Africa, and in no industry is the disparity between home Tariff. 393 revision of Tin; and foreign labor greater or the need of protection more urgent. A domestic miner receives on the average $1.35 per day, while those of Spain and Africa, from whence comes the larger amount of foreign ore, are not above 40 cents per day. The duty on ore at 75 cents amounts to 30 per cent, ad valorem, while in this country the miner is paid over 300 per cent more. It is no small army of honest men free raw mate- rials would vitally affect, while millions of capital would be destroyed. The writer, therefore, in behalf of the Easteru Iron Ore Association, would most respectfully urge upon you not to advocate free raw mate- rials in your forthcoming message to Congress. Respectfully yours, F. S. WITIIERBEE, President Eastern Iron Ore Association. [George H. , iron ore.] % Cleveland, Ohio, October 10, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, i 'Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, I). C. : Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of July 21, 1885, stating that our tariff laws are now largely eva- ded by u undervaluation whenever the duties are levied ad valorem,’ 7 and asking my opinion “ as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff, and making the duty specific as far as applicable to imported articles made and produced in the United States in which I am interested.” Acknowledging the courtesy of your suggestion, I am glad to avail myself of the opportunity which it affords to convey the impressions growing out of my business experience. The line of production in which I am engaged is iron ore. This has been almost my exclusive occupation for over thirty years, beginning with the earliest development of the iron-ore region of Lake Superior, and having been actively occupied in the different departments of min- ing, transportation, and sales ever since. The foundations of our American iron and steel manufactures rest upon the fact of an abundant and favorably-distributed supply of iron ore. Upon this certainty of an adequate American supply of ore has been reared tfre entire structure of our iron and steel manufacture, now so vast as to almost control the industrial and financial conditions of our national life, extending from feeble beginnings of the manufacture in a few localities along the Atlantic coast, and when charcoal was the only fuel for reduction, to a successful domestication in twenty-eight States and two Territories. In all that magnificent advance of our iron and steel manufactures which has made us now in the first century of our national existence, the second iron producer in the world, iron-ore production has led the way; nor, excepting from exceptional and temporary caused has the supply of American ore ever proved to be even temporarily insufficient. Under such conditions only began the importations of foreign ores iu any quantity in 1879. Previous to that time, so improbable was it that foreign ores would under any rate of duty displace the American prod- uct, that they were never even named in the metal schedule. The rela- tions of other mine products were duly defined, such as coal, building- stone, clay, &c., and discrimination made iu their favor. Iron ore 394 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. came in under the clause, “All mineral and bituminous substances not otherwise provided for, 20 per cent, ad valorem.'” It was under this form and rate of duty that all imijortations w T ere made down to July 1, 1883, when the law making the duty 75 cents per ton specific went into operation. From 1879 to 1883, 2,640,906 tons were imported, principally from Spain and Africa, and mainly at the ports of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. In August, 1879. General Appraiser Meredith wrote the Department on the subject of irregularities in entries aud under- valuations of iron ore. He said : The very great difficulty in getting the true dutiable value at which iron ore should be entered consists in the fact that they are not bought, and sold in the markets of the countries from which they are imported, and consequently they have no commercial value. The ores from Spanish ports are imported at New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore at the mere nominal price of mining, shipment, &c. Under this statement, the Department sent a special agent to Canada for investigation, whose report confirmed the views of the general ap- praiser as to the undervaluation, and pointed to a change to specific duty as the remedy. Pending the work of the Tariff Commission of 1882, the Iron and Steel Association of the United States called a convention September 12 at Cresson, Pa., for conference upon the metal schedule. As to the form of the duty upon iron ore, it was unanimously agreed that it should be specific; as to the rate of duty, it was at first, by a decided majority vote, agreed that it should be 81 per ton; subsequently, by a unan- imous vote, it was agreed to recommend 85 cents per ton. Here, then, was a, distinct, emphatic, and unanimous expression from the consum- ers of iron ore in favor of specific instead of ad valorem duties and of a rate of duty not lower than 85 cents per ton. The present rate of duty, 75 cents per ton, is actually below what was asked for by iron and steel manufacturers of the whole country, in the permanent interests of their business. It would seem as if such an adjustment between interests represent- ing the vast capital's and the armies of laborers engaged in the produc- tion and in the use annually of about 8,000,000 tons of ore, and formu- lated into law, at the head of the metal schedule, should be allowed to stand; but no, the capital employed in ore production in Spain, Africa, Cuba, and Canada, and in its transportation to our shores, asks for the removal of all duty. This demand is supported, also, here and there, by special and isolated manufacturing interests, which, on grounds of locality or other inadmissible reasons, are seeking to separate them- selves from the great body of their co workers in iron and steel, and so ignore the rights of co-ordinate industries, and, in fact, to sacrifice the principle of protection which is needed for their own defense. Practi- cally, then, it is a foreign and not a home interest that asks for a change. Foreign ores entered on the Atlantic seaboard are used principally east of the AUeghanies, although to some extent they are carried west as far as Johnstown and Pittsburgh. There they compete also directly with the ores of Western Pennsylvania and Lake Superior. It is claimed that the steel interests of Eastern Pennsylvania especially need foreign ores, in the absence of an adequate supply of Bessemer ores within their reach. This claim, however, is not w T ell founded. In Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, there are immense deposits of valu- able ore low in phosphorus. The Chateagay mines, Franklin County, New York, are low in phosphorus, large producers already, and unlim- ited in capacity. In Putnam and Columbia Counties, New York, and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 395 in Sussex and Morris Counties, New Jersey, are also large deposits of ore suitable for Bessemer steel. Of New Jersey ore interests, Prof. George H. Cook, in his annual re- port for 1884, says: The low price of iron ore, and the light demand for ore at almost any figure, have caused a large shrinkage in the production and closed many of our mines. The large and increasing importations of iron ore from Spain and Africa also operate against our mines, since these rich and pure foreign ores can he put down at the furnace near the seaboard at lower rates per unit of metallic iron than the New Jersey ores can be profitably mined and shipped to these same points. In addition to these sources of supply of Bessemer ore, there are mines in Virginia now being developed and railroad construction going on to bring their products to market— products, however, whose natural market would be usurped by Spanish and Cuban ores were the duty removed. It is plain, therefore, from these facts, that an abundance of Bessemer ore is within the reach of the steel makers of the Atlantic seaboard. They go to Spain, Africa, and Cuba simply and only because these ores can be and are laid down to them at the furnace at lower cost than the home production ; and that is possible because we do not ask or expect the American laborer to accept the wages that are paid for mining in Spain, Africa, and Cuba, countries in which wages are the lowest, and, which necessarily follows, where the laboring popula- tion is most degraded. This difference in wages closes American mines. The wages per day paid in producing Spanish ore is 35 to 45 cents. According to the last reports from the Chateagay mines, ordinary miners’ and laborers 7 wages were from $1.40 to $2 ; Mahopac Iron Com- pany, $1.72; Cornwall Mining Company, $50 per month; Lake Cham- plain mines, $1.70 per day. The average of wages paid by the Republic Iron Company, the Jackson Iron Company, and the Lake Superior Iron Company, in the Marquette district, and employing 1,700 men, is $2.08 per day. It is obvious that our iron and steel industries must rely mainly upon the home production. Can it be wise or just, through the lowering or the removal of the duty, to give to the seaboard manufacturer advantages which, from the nature of the case, are beyond the reach of manufacturers in the interior or in the West? It has been stated that foreign ores aid iu utilizing American ores by mixing. The fact, however, is that the reverse is the case. Instead of foreign importations increasing the use of American ores, they displace them ; and this is true not only of the Bessemer ores but those in use for ordinary grades of pig-iron. These facts were all established before the Tariff Commission in 1882. It would seem as if the assumption were revived now only to give plausibility to a theory of “ free raw materials. 77 It is assumed that if raw materials were on the free list our manufacturers in different lines could produce at lower cost, and cheaper production would of course open to us wider markets. The advocates of this doctrine do not openly and directly propose to bring about lower cost of production by the only means by which it can really be attaiued — lower wages for labor — but they aim at the same result in this indirect way by substituting the products of foreign labor at starvation wages for the products of the American working- man, and so depriving him of work altogether in those industries af- fected. The appeal is made primarily to those individuals and corpo- rations whose business relates to the conversion of the lowest forms of crude materials into the next highest form. If the opening can be made here, if the makers of pig-iron, bar-iron, and steel rails, and of woolen goods, and scores of other producers at the base of each of whose iu- 39 6 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. dustries is a material more crude in form than its finished product, can be brought to respond to this seductive but specious appeal, and thus break down the main defenses of our home industries, then the enemies of our American system have won their case. The remaining sem- blance of protection need be no longer preserved. Virtual free trade would then have been reached and its corollary follow — direct taxation for the support of the Government. We have, of course, industries whose crude materials must all be im- ported which cannot or are not advantageously produced in our own country. Such materials do not compete with home labor, and they are, as they should be, on the free list. Duties upon foreign materials that do compete are quite another thing. In support of this move- ment for u free raw materials” iron ore and wool are especially singled out. A beginning must be made somewhere ; Ihere must be materials that are not theproductsof capital and labor. But is there any such thing as raw material? Are not all our industries interlocked and interdepend- ent ? The finished product of one being the raw material of another, to the miner the solid ore, inert and dormant in the heart of the mountain, but absolutely worthless without his labor to bring it up to light, is raw material. To the furnace man it is the ore mined and transported to his furnace. To the foundry man, and heater, and mill roller, it is the pig-iron, increased in value by the labor which has brought it into that form. So it is along the whole range, from the ore unloosened, unseparated from the infolding and inclosing rock in the bowels of the earth, to the steel rail, the locomotive, the polished blade, and the finished cambric needle. There are a hundred manipu- lations, and the material has been successively raw material to dif- ferent classes of manufactures. Where, then, is the line to be drawn ? Is the labor that puts the final touch upon the locomotive, or which watches the flying shuttle of the loom, to be protected, and that which lifted the ore into the light, or which raised the wmol on the farm, to have no protection, but on the contrary to be subjected to destructive competition with the low- est wages upon which human beings can subsist ? But as I have intimated, the advocates of this doctrine insist upon its application far beyond prime production. Imported at whatever stage of manufacture the foreign product may be, if not in condition for actual use by the consumer, it must be classified as raw material. American labor may be permitted to give it the final touch. Nineteen- twentieths of the labor may have been put upon the article abroad, still it is raw material of American industry, and under the theory should bear a low rate of duty. The watch maybe imported complete except the spring, the coat complete except the button, the steel rail complete except the punching, and so on. The object seems to be to prove that a large proportion of our imports are raw materials of our home industries, and, therefore, do not compete with them, but, on the other hand, are really an aid and support, and on this ground to secure a wholesale re- duction of duties. It is obvious that the theory is specious and untenable. Its applica- tion, as proposed in our tariff laws, would unwisely and unjustly array one class of American laborers against another class. No, Mr. Secretary, these great producing interests must all stand upon a common level, enjoying such advantages for cheap production as favorable localities may give to each, but asking no discriminations in favor of special local interests to the injury of the great body of pro- ducers in other sections of the country. I have stated, Mr. Secretary, that American ore production is fully REVISION OE THE TARIFF. 397 abreast of the wants of the manufacturers. This, however, has been secured only through the determined and persistent efforts made in every part of the country to develop our mineral resources. The present annual production, about eight million tons, has been reached only by enormous ontlays of capital, over long periods of time, and with all the risks involved in an occupation so precarious as mining. Ithasbeen said that iron ore is ‘‘simply an earth,” having no labor upon it except that of digging it out; but every intelligent man must know that large outlays of capital are necessary before the laborer can begin to dig out ore, and that every step in his process of digging involves an additional expenditure. Shafts must be sunk and costly hoisting machinery provided before mining on an extensive scale can begin; and once begun, every foot traversed requires expensive timbering for the suppo/t of the mine roof. This also must be constantly kept in repair and renewed. The cost of timbering alone in the Menominee Mining Company’s mines was stated by President Vandyke, before the Tariff Commission, to be one dollar per ton on ore produced. In ad- dition to all this there is the cost of powerful explosives and pumping machinery. All this* is quite different from* simply “digging out an earth.” Again, the capital invested in mining, it must be borne in mind, is planted on that spot forever. There it wastes and finally disappears. Ore-mining, too, is always more or less an experiment. In a single week the ore may become so mixed with rock as to be worthless, or it may be worked out entirely and the pick of the miner strike a solid wall of rock. But beyond the preparations for and the cost and the risk of mining come the enormous cost of railroads and vessels built solely for ore transportation. This capital, too, like that in mine ma- chinery and timbering, takes all the risk of waste and final destruction when either the mine has become exhausted or when its market, as in case of being displaced by foreign ores, is destroyed. The extent of these necessary appliances for transportation by land and water will be better appreciated if we bear in mind that while in Great Britain the average distance which ore, coal, and limestone are carried to the furnace is 40 miles, the average distance carried of these materials in the United States is about 400 miles. The Lake Superior mines furnish about one-third of the, ore for the pig-iron production of the United States. The capital employed in mining is estimated to be : Marquette district $33, 000, 000 Menominee district 18, 000, 000 51,000,000 Fifteen thousand men are directly employed in mining, and these districts support 50,000 people. Three railroads leading from the mines to the lake shipping ports, Mar- quette, Escanaba, and St. Ignace, built almost exclusively for ore transportation, are using in this ore transportation exclusively $19, 325, 000 Capital in vessels and steamers ou the lakes for ore transportation 6, 000, 000 Capital used by four railroads, exclusively for ore transportation, from the harbors of Cleveland, Ashtabula, and Erie to furnaces in Ohio and Pennsylvania 5, 152, 807 81,477,807 Add estimate for Vermillion district mines and railroads, Minnesota. .. 5, 000, 000 Gogebic district, mines, and railroad, Wisconsin 3,500,000 89, 977,807 398 REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. He>e, then, in the Northwest alone, in various connected, dependent departments, combined and organized to the single end of utilizing its mineral products for the necessities of our iron and steel industries, is the vast aggregate of nearly $90,000,000. And it is permanently in- vested ; withdrawal of it elsewhere is impossible; it must live and pros- per or it must perish where it is. This vast combination of mining and transportation appliances has reached its present magnitude only through slow accretions. The seed was planted thirty-five years ago in a wilderness; it has come to fruitage, as in many another instance of material development on a grand scale, with all the alternations of suc- cess and failure, and with the usual concomitants of individual loss and disaster. But what of the labor employed ? From the nature of the business, the mining and transportation of a product in which value is greatly disproportioned to the tonnage involved, the labor permanently em- ployed is proportionately larger. From the first tap of the drill and the first stroke of the pick in the mine to the charge at the tunnel-head of the furnace, 500 to 1,000 miles distant, all is labor, and it is the labor of American citizens. Their wages are represented by the comfortable homes in thriving villages, at every group of mines in the forest, and their schools and churches and other accessories of our American social life reveal the difference in the wages paid in American ore production and those paid in Spain, Africa, and Cuba. But ore-mining in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Virginia, and the Southern States is carried on under similar conditions as on Lake Superior. It is a very serious question whether this vast aggregate of capital employed in this business, with all the labor occupation involved, in every part of the United States, shall be exposed to waste and loss through the recognition of our tariff* laws in any degree of a theory so impracticable and unjust as free raw materials. Shall not American labor in the mine, in constructing and operating the railroad, and in sailing the ship on the transportation route be protected equally with that at the furnace and at the loom? From the foregoing may be deduced some obvious conclusions : (1) Deposits of American ore are practically unlimited in extent and of every variety of chemical constitution, suitable for steel as well as iron. Whatever, therefore, may be true as to any necessity for the im- portation of the crude material of any other industry, no necessity for importation exists in this case. (2) Under a duty fully protective home competition can be relied upon to meet the wants of our iron and steel manufactures, with every variety of ore, at the lowest cost consistent with fair wages to Ameri- can labor. Reliance upon importations would be dangerous and im- possible. American ore can never be exported ; it is entitled to the home market. These are the propositions of the capital and labor engaged in the home production. To these the iron and steel manufacturers of the United States, with the fullest comprehension of their significance in re- spect to the safety and continued expansion of their buisuess, and also their bearing upon the great problem of iron and steel to the consumer at lowest possible cost, are also fully agreed. Can such absolute decla- rations from producer and consumer be ignored at the instance of a few interested individuals and corporations in a single locality, or because a few advocates of a theory of free raw material choose to insist that iron ore must be denied protection because it is not a “product.” I trust, Mr. Secretary, that these rather extended remarks in expla- REVISION OF T£E TARIFF. 399 nation of the present position of iron ore in the metal schedule, and the relations of American ore production to our iron and steel industries and to the business interests of the country, will not be regarded as having exceeded the proper bounds of such a communication. If so, I suggest that they may be justified on the ground of the liberal terms in which your letter of inquiry invites discussion, and in view of the vital relations of the subject to the industrial and financial interests of the whole country. It will be observed, Mr. Secretary, that I am a believer in the prin- ciple of protection ; that I am an advocate of its fullest recognition in our tariff laws, and of its application for the defense from undue foreign competition of every American industry. I would place on the free list the products of foreign countries which are, or can be made, the basis of an American industry, provided their importation does not interfere with and displace an equivalent product of home labor. 1 would put on the free list those productions of other countries which are in com- mon use by the great mass of our people and which cannot be advan- tageously produced by home labor. I would make the duty highest upon articles of luxury imported for the rich only. I would not make the duty prohibitory lest it tend to foster monopolies. I would make the duty always protective upon all products upon which home labor is or can be employed, to the extent of fully covering the difference in labor cost in foreigu countries and in this country. I am not in favor of production at the lowest possible cost , wheu this involves European witges for the American citizen. That citizen is charged with the responsibilities of government. For these he can never be qualified in the absence of the means of education aud incen tives to moral elevation. Low wages mean the deterioration and degra- dation of manhood and womanhood. I believe that even in our tariff laws, beyond economic questions, there should be definite .recognition of these higher and most essential objects. Upon these general principles the present tariff was framed. Its practical operation over a period of 25 years has justified the principle. It has given employment to labor in scores of industries that under the opposing economic system could never have found foothold in this coun- try. Under it, wages have averaged above 60 per cent, higher than in free-trade countries, while the cost of the necessaries and of the com- forts of life are in the main as low as in such countries. The superior social conditions of labor here fully confirm this. Instead of fostering monopolies, this tariff has promoted home competition, so that a better article comes to the consumer, and at lower cost. As a means of raising revenue for the support of the Government, it is admitted that its operation is both uniform and effective. Under it trade is now absolutely free among all our States and Territories — the largest and best market in the world. Can it be wise to deprive our- selves of the enormous advantages of this market by lowering or remov- ing duties in favor of foreign manufacturing and commercial competi- tors? It cannot be claimed, of course, that our tariff laws are now perfect in all details, but I am of the opinion that no general revision is now necessary. A thorough review and fresh adjustment of details, after a year of investigation and discussion in and out of Congress, has but recently been completed. The changes then made necessarily affected all business interests in some way. There was, however, no time for adjustment to the conditions imposed by the new law before agitation began for further changes, and for even the practical discarding and overthrow of the principle upon which the present tariff was framed, 400 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. through the introduction of the Morrison bill providing for 20 per cent, horizontal reduction in the last session of Congress. This movement caused alarm and apprehension throughout the country ; nor were its effects obviated when the immediate danger was passed. Our industrial and financial depression of the last two years, in com- mon with that of Great Britain and other parts of Europe, has, in my opinion, Mr. Secretary, been greatly aggravated and intensified by this injurious, untimely agitation. No other result could have been ex- pected than that which ensued — the alarm of capital, production ar- rested, consumption diminished, labor being not fully employed or wages reduced. For these and other reasons, Mr. Secretary, I most earnestly hope that beyond, possibly, any slight changes that may be necessary for reducing the expense and for the more efficient collection of the reve- nue, the tariff laws may remain, for the present, at least, undisturbed. I remain, honorable sir, very respectfullv, GEOKGE H. ELY. [J. B. Moorehead & Co., pig-iron.'] Philadelphia, August 10, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, , Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular issued*to manufacturers, I re- spectfully submit a letter I addressed to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Kepresentatives in February, 1884. Circum- stances have somewhat changed since the date of my letter in reducing the cost of producing one ton of pig-iron, in a reduced cost of iron ore, coal, coke,* and limestone and labor of about $3 per ton of pig-iron. At the same time the average price of the market is at least $3 per ton less than in February, 1884, so that, relatively, the producer is in about the same position. The capital invested in the plant and including s’ock on hand of the company I represent is at this date about $480,000. I am only inter- ested in the manufacture of pig-iron, and will not attempt to deal with other manufactures. I think in all cases where it is practicable specific duties should prevail. The fact of the low cost of raw materials now prevailing for produc- ing pig-iron is so low as not to allow a reasonable and fair compensa- tion for the laborer or operating mines (actually starvation prices), should not be considered a fair basis to form a tariff for revenue pur- poses. Better times should prevail for the laborer, the mine owner, and the manufacturer. This will of course increase the cost of produc- tion. At present low prices in our market foreign pig-iron cannot be imported to any considerable extent, but with an advance of about $3 or $4 per ton, which all parties interested in the materials producing pig-iron are justly entitled to to give them fair compensation, the foreign iron will flood our market, unless an increase is made in the tariff on pig-iron over the existing tariff. The difference in the cost of labor in this country over the cost of labor in England to produce a ton of pig-iron, including mining ore and coal, producing coke, and quarrying limestone, is fully equal to the present tariff. Our productive capacity to make pig-iron in this country is at this day greatly in excess of the consumption ol the United States. Under such circumstances why should we not protect our own market REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 401 for our own manufacturers, develop our own country, line! employment for our laborers at fair wages, and make our own people happy and prosperous? Respectfully yours, J. B. MOORHEAD, President. Letter of February, 1884. To the Committee of Ways and Means. Gentlemen: The undersigned has been engaged in the manufacture of pig iron since 1857 ; he has given the business his close personal attention, and claims to be a practical man. The location of his works (on the Schuylkill) and the character of his plant are fully equal to the average of furnaces in the Lehigh and Schuylkill valleys. He has now two idle furnaces, and none in blast. The reasons for their standing idle at this time will be shown by the following statement of the cost of production and the present ruling of prices of the market for pig iron. Cost of production : 2 ton s of ore $9 10 1£ tons of coal and coke 5 50 Limestone for flux 1 00 Labor, oil, and running repairs 2 70 Actual cost per ton of iron 18 30 No allowance is made for interest on capital invested, or for wear and tear of plant. Ruling prices to-day of the different grades of pig-iron at furnace: No. 1 foundry iron $20 00 No. 2 foundry iron 19 00 No. 3 gray forge iron 17 00 mottled iron 16 00 white iron 15 00 Average of the five grades 17 40 Supposing a furnace to make equal quantities of each grade, the cost would be $18.30 per ton ; and the result of sales, taking the average of the five grades, would be $17.40 per ton ; showing a loss, per ton, of 90 cents ; no allownnce being made for interest on capital or to make good the wear and tear of the plant. Allowing for a blast of two years, which is fully up to the average, an expenditure of from fifteen to twenty thou- sand dollars is usually necessary to put the works in good repair to start on a new blast. On a production of 17,500 tons of pig iron in twelvemonths (the capacity of one fur- nace) the loss w r ould be, in a blast of two years, say on 35,000 tons of iron at 90 cents per ton, $31,500. These facts are sufficient reasons to account for idle furnaces at this time. There should be a margin of profit of at least $1.50 per ton, to pay interest on capital in- vested and to make goo rl. the wear and tear of the plant after two years’ running. To warrant this result, the average ruling price of iron above the present ruling price should be not less than $2.40 per ton. How can this be accomplished with a reduction of the present tariff ? The necessities of the case require an increase of at least $2 per ton on the present tariff on pig iron, to keep foreign iron out of our market, and that the price here may be advanced to cover cost of production. At the present prices it is only a question of financial ability and time to determine the closing of many of the furnaces now in blast. Respectfullv submitted. J. B. MOREHEAD. Philadelphia, February 14, 1884. S. Ex. 72 26 402 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The Pottstown Iron Co., pig iron.~\ Pottstown , Pa., August 31, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury, Washington , I). C. : Dear Sir : In response to your circular letter of 6th instant, beg to say, that having learned that Mr. James M. Swank, of the American Iron and Steel Association, at your request, is preparing a report of average returns from the various industrial enterprises of our country, we have forwarded to him statements showing cost of the materials we manufacture, which will ultimately come before you in the general average of Mr. Swank’s report. In further reply we would say, that allowing royalties of 30 cents per ton on anthracite, 10 cents to 15 cents per ton on bituminous coals, 10 cents on limestones, and 30 cents to 50 cents per ton ou ores, the balance of present price of pig iron, and its various manufactured products, con- sists of labor and interest in some form, and principally the former, as many of our branches are conducted at an absolute loss. Analyzing pig iron you will find that after deducting royalties above mentioned, the cost of mining and transporting is again largely labor, either direct or indirect, as repairs or cost of plant. So, also, blast furnace expenses consist of similar items, and the con- version in mills into plates, nails, or bars, and in many cases the mines and works are operated without netting even royalty or interest. The freights, which enter more largely into cost of manufacture here than in England, on account of the greater distances apart of our fuel and ores, are again all labor, since cost of road bed and rails and main tenance of way are all reducible to labor, quite as well as the actual cost of loading and moving, so that all exceeding $1 per ton received for royalty on ra w materials undeveloped may justly in these times be classed as labor. We are decidedly in favor of specific duties ou all grades of iron and steel. We think the lower classes of labor should have better pro tection, and would advocate a return of the duty on pig iron to $7 and on ores to $1 per ton. We believe the manufacture of tin plate and building of iron ships in this country would so materially aid business as to convert the present depression into a period of prosperity ; and we would advocate the duty of 2£ cents per pound on tin plate, and of 2 cents per pound on steel ingots and slabs, and 2£ cents on manufactures of steel not enumerated; and a liberal remuneration for the carrying of foreign mails in American-built vessels, thereby opening up to us the foreign markets, into which, with equal carrying facilities, we believe we can now successfully enter. Very respectfully, WILLIAM H. MORRIS, Treasurer. [The Eastern Pig Iron Association, pig iron. J Philadelphia, Pa., November 4, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. : Sir : 1 have the honor to transmit herewith the reply of the Eastern Pig-Iron Association to your letter of September, 1885, relating to u in- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 403 vestigations of the methods of entry and appraisement of imported arti- cles,” showing u that the tariff laws are largely evaded by undervalua- tion wherever the duties are levied ad valorem,” and asking the views of those interested as to the probable efficacy of the substitution of specific duties, giving rates, as a means of remedying such irregularities. Also asking views as to the feasibility of simplifying the tariff and sub- mitting certain points of inquiry with reference to that object. I desire to press upon your attention the information conveyed in this report. The region covered * represents the cradle of iron manu- factures in the United States, a branch of industry to-day as extensive in its operations and influence as the nation. It also presents that phase of the question of iron production in the United States which might not appear with so much force in the opera- tions of the same industry in the more remote States of the interior, viz, proximity to the seaboard, and therefore greater liability to sub jection to the more direct and degrading effects of the competition of the iron product of the pauper-paid labor of foreign countries. Very respectfully, HENRY S. ECKERT, President Eastern Pig-Iron Association. De B. RANDOLPH KEIM, Secretary. (1) Pig-iron. (2) Cost of production . — In the last three years has varied from $17 to $20 per ton (2,240 pounds;. • (a) Cost of materials and character of same. — Pig-iron is produced by smelting in a blast furnace iron ores and limestone with fuel. Iron ores are very extensively disseminated, being fonnd in every known country. When perfectly pure they contain nothing but iron and oxygen, and sometimes car- bon in various proportions. Pure red hematite contains 70 per cent, of iron and 30 per cent, of oxygen ; pure brown hematite, 60 per ceut. of iron and 40 per cent, of oxygen ; pure magnetite, 72.4 per cent, of iron and 27.6 per cent, of oxygen; pure protocarbonate, 48 per cent, of iron and 52 per cent, of oxygen and carbon. But these ores are never found pure in commercial quantities, being mixed with various substances, principally silica, lime, and alumina in every conceivable propor- tion. The ores occur either iu veins of varying sizes and of many degrees of hardness, or in fragments scattered more or less abundantly through deposits of sand or clay. These last require washing to remove the foreign matter. It is evident from the above that as tlwe ores vary infinitely in purity, and in facility of mining, and must be necessarily located at various distances from the furnace, which produces a variance in cost of transportation, it is impossible to state the cost of ores generally. But something like au average may be reached in another way. It may be said that at the present price of iron no blast furnace can afford to run unless the cost of its ores is below 8 cents per unit, i. e., $8 for the quantity of ore required to produce a ton of iron. In fact, very few can pay that much unless thoy have exceptional ad- vantages in other respects, such as cost of fuel, nearness to market, cheapness of labor, &c. In this cost of $8 for the ores required to produce a ton of pig iron about $6.50 would be expended for labor, 50 cents for royalty to owner of mines, and$l for trans- portation. But this distribution would, of course, vary with the circumstances of the locality. There is one class of ores of exceptional purity in regard to phosphorus, which are used in making iron from which steel is to be afterwards produced by the acid Besse- mer process. These ores are comparatively rare iu the vicinity of most of the great steel works, though found in most parts of this country in some quantity, and usually command a higher price for the special use mentioned. Furnaces situated near the coast often import foreign ores for this purpose in preference to x>aying high trans_ 404 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. portation charges from the mines of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, and Tennessee, where the largest de- posits of Bessemer ores are found. These foreign ores come mainly from Spain, Algiers, and the island of Elba. Recently they have also been brought from Cuba. Such ores, averaging 50 per cent, of metallic iron, can be laid down in the Atlantic ports for about $4 per ton, including the duty of 75 cents per ton. Much has been said by persons interested in foreign mines, or who wish to get for- eign ores as cheaply as possible, about removing the duty on ores as an incentive to the manufacture of pig iron. As to that we wish to say, as makers of pig iron, we are opposed to any reduction of duty. It is not true, as has been asserted by those who ought to know better, that the importation of foreign ores benefits the native miner by enabling him to market a portion of his phosphatic product for mixture with an equal portion of the purer imported article for the production of Bessemer iron. Such mixture is unheard of in practice. Our native ores are as good though not as cheap, as the foreign article, and every ton of foreign ore imported displaces just one ton of native ore. We believe the only certain method to secure an adequate, regular, and satisfactory supply of raw materials used in making pig iron is by the maintenance of adequate protective duties upon such materials as are produced at home. And while anxious to prevent any legislation that would be damaging to our own manufacture, we have no desire to profit at the expense of kindred industries, notably so in the case of the principal raw materials of our own consumption, namely, iron ore and fuels. While some temporary benefit might accrue to us from free ore, soft coal, and coke, such gain would w r ork serious injury to the labor now engaged in the home industries, and we do not think it either expedient or just that American producers of coal, coke, and iron ore should be compelled to compete with the much lower labor of foreign countries, while manufacturers of pig iron and nearly all finished materials enjoy a greater or less degree of protection. Further, we desire to put on record our belief that any advantage to manufacturers growing out of the admission of free raw materials that are produced in this country would be but temporary. Any con- siderable reliance upon foreign sources for the supply of iron ore (which is the foundation of our vast iron and steel industry) might at any time prove disastrous by reason of an interruption of shipments caused by war. Any crippling of Ameri- can mining, causing stoppage even of the dead work involved in the intelligent development of our home ores, and making our iron and steel works dependent upon foreign supply of ores in time of war, would infallibly weaken our ability for national defense. So that the future interest and safety of the whole iron and steel manufacture and of the country at large is involved in this question, even if simple justice to the capital apd labor in mining be not considered. Should unfavorable legislation result in crippling or closing American mines, it should be well understood that in case of war the supply of iron ore and coal would be totally inadequate to properly maintain the equipment of our laud and sea forces. To reopen and make productive abandoned mines might take months, or even years. Limestone . — This is used as a flux. It acts by combining at a high temperature with the silica and other impurities of the ore, forming a fusible slag, which sinks toward the bottom of the furnace, but, being lighter than the melted iron, floats on it and is tapped oft' and removed. Pure limestone is a carbonate of lime. It is very rarely pure. Most limestones con- tain a mixture of carbonate of magnesia which is not deleterious, as it also acts as a flux. Besides this they contain silica (which is injurious when in larger proportion than 6 or 7 per cent.) and other substances in small quantities. The cost of quarrying limestone and transporting it to the furnace varies very much with circumstances, and the quantity required varies with the amouutof silica or other impurity to be removed from the ore. The cost of limestone per ton of iron may be safely estimated at somewhere between 50 cents and $1 per ton. Of this cost 80 to 90 per cent, is for labor, 5 per cent, for royalty, and the balance for transportation. Of this last (transportation) we believe fully two-thirds to be for labor. Fuel . — This is either charcoal, anthracite coal, bituminous coal, or coke, or a mixture of some of the last three. About two-thirds of the charcoal is made by the furnace owner, and its cost depends upon the rate of wages and the length of the haul. It will average about 7 cents per bushel, and the quantity required is from 90 to 150 bushels per ton of iron. Anthracite, bituminous coal, and coke are rarely produced by the furnace owner, but are bought in open market. In that case the cost at the furnace varies with the length of the transportation. It probably averages from $5 to $6.50 per ton of iron, according to location. Of this cost from 30 to 60 cents per tou of iron is royalty, the balance being labor and transportation, which last is probably two-thirds labor. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 405 (&) Cost of labor . — The actual cost of furnace labor, including handling materials and product, with superintendence, at a well-managed furnace will average $2 to $2.50 per ton of iron. Taking $2 as a standard, the items would be about as follows : Superintendence, including clerical labor $0 30 Cinder men (removing slag) 30 Fillers (putting materials into furnace) 70 Iron men (preparing beds and handling iron) 20 General men (blacksmiths, enginemen, laborers, &c.) 50 Total 2 00 The rates of wages range from 11 cents per hour for unskilled labor to $1.75 and $2.50 per day for skilled mechanics. (c) Operating expenses . — The principal item of operating expenses is labor, given above. The other items are incidentals and repairs. Incidentals iuclude small daily repairs to furnace and machinery, as well as such items as feed for horses and oil for lubrication and light, &c. These, of course, vary every month, but will average 75 cents per ton of iron. Repairs . — Generally apply to large items, always required when an accident occurs, or the furnace goes out of blast at the close of the campaign. The relining of the fur- nace with fire brick and a thorough overhauling of the machinery is always neces- sary at the end of a blast, before the furnace can be started up again. The amount of repairs required varies very much, and can never be determined till the furnace is cold and emptied to admit of inspection. Then the length of the blast varies from a few months to four or five years, and of course the quantity of iron against which the repairs are chargeable varies with the length of the blast. For these reasons the amount per ton due to cost of repairs can only be estimated while the furnace is in blast, but it is considered safe to charge 50 cents per ton for this item. In order to comply with the Secretary’s request for itemized expenditures, we append a statement of the actual cost of making pig-iron at four works in different parts of the country east of the Allegheny Mountains, which may be taken as typical establishments in the districts where they are located. This statement covers the years 1882, 1883, and 1884. Tons iron made. Fuel. Ore. Limestone. Wages and salaries. Incidentals. Repairs. Total cost. I. 64, 200 II. 96, 000 $5 15 5 47 $8 50 9 58 $0 97 42 $2 25 1 82 $0 43 72 $17 30 18 70 $0 69 III. 52, 152 5 96 9 26 82 2 10 62 19 18 95 IV. 90, 500 6 50 9 00 69 2 37 1 10 50 20 16 The cost here given is absolute expense at the works and does not include cost of sales and general office, commissions, interest, taxes, &c., which may be found treated hereafter. While it will be seen that the direct charge for labor at the furnace ranges from $1.82 to $2.37 per ton of iron, it must be emphatically stated that the other items, fuel, ore, limestone and repairs are very largely, perhaps 90 per cent., made up of labor. ( d ) Interest . — A furnace capable of producing with rich ores 100 tons of pig iron per day, with the necessary appurtenances, can be built for about $200,000. The same furnace working on lean ores might not produce over 70 tons per day. In one case the interest, $32.87 per day, would be 32| cents per ton of iron. In the other case it would be 4 6$, cents per ton of iron. Supposing the furnace to purchase all the materials used, and to carry unsold only six weeks’ production, it would require a working capital of $75,000 at least, and $100,000 would be far safer. The interest on the smaller sum, $12.33 per day, would be 12£ cents per ton on a make of 100 tons, and 17 T {j per ton on a make of 70 tons per day. Other elements of cost not covered by the above are taxes, insurance, and commis- sions on sales (about 1 per cent.), to which should be added the cost of reaching mar- ket. These items will at least average $1.00 per ton. 3. Description of buildings . — As every iron furnace differs from every other in many 406 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. respects, it is impossible to give other than a general description. The usual build- ings are : (1) The furnace stack costing $30,000 (2) The cast-house 10, 000 (3) The stock-house, for storing ore and fuel, with track, &c 10, 000 (4) The eDgine-house 10,000 (5) Boiler-house 5,000 (6) Hot ovens 40,000 The machinery consists of one or two steam engines, with boilers and at- tachments, pumps, &c 80, 000 The hot-blast pipes aud cold-air pipes 10, 000 The hoist or elevator for raising materials to the top of the furnace 5, 000 Total costing, as above, about 200, 000 This does not include houses for workmen, which are sometimes absolutely neces- sary ; nor the cost of land, nor does it include locomotives and cars, which in most cases are indispensable. (4) The imported article pig iron is subject to a specific duty of $6.72 per ton, or three-tenths of a cent per pound, but scrap iron which bears the same rate of duty is used in place of pig irou, and as one ton of scrap is equivalent to one ton and a quarter of pig, we consider that the duty is too low. The duty should be $8.40 per ton on scrap iu order to equalize the two and protect our workmen engaged in the laborious occupation of puddling — i. e., reducing pig irou to the form of wrought iron. We further assert that the duty on pig iron is entirely too low. It was reduced from $7 to $6.72 by the Tariff act of 1883. It should now be advanced to $8 the figure re- commended by the Cresson convention to the Tariff Commission in 1882, and scrap iron should be advanced proportionately. (5) As our reply is general and is intended to represent an average over the whole country east of the Allegheny Mountains, matters of exceptional advantage or disad- vantage on account of location are eliminated. We may properly state here that England and Belgium have an advantage over all localities in this country arising from the smallness of those countries and the proximity of the materials for making iron. Although the freight rates on English and continental railroads are at least double those on American roads, yet the haulage distauce is so much less on the former that the foreign iron maker has enormous advantages iu home transportation. At the same time the ocean freights are so low that the 3,000 miles from Europe to America costs no more than 150 miles on an American railroad. As to the wages paid in Europe generally, we know no better source of information than the recent book by Sir I. Lowthian Bell, on the manufacture of iron, which contains full aud authentic details on this subject. We may say generally that American wages in all departments of the iron manufacture range from 75 per cent, to 100 per cent, above those in corre- sponding circumstances in Europe. In conclusion, we would say that we know of no evasions of duties by importers of pig iron, nor do we believe that any exist. We are, however, directly interested in the importation of bar, sheet, and merchant iron, because every ton of these contains at least a ton and a half of pig iron in a more advanced state of manufacture. Con- sequently any evasion of the tariff on bar or sheet iron affects our business, and we be- lieve that evasions of duties have been largely practiced on such articles. But we leave it to the manufacturers of wrought iron in its various forms to point out the source and remedy for such evasions, with which they are far more familiar than we can be. We would here call attention to three instances, not indeed evasions, but cases of inadequate duties. Spiegel iron is classified as pig iron aud pays the same duty, though it is worth $10 per ton more than pig iron. Ferro-manganese, also classified as pig iron aud paying the same duty, is worth from $20 to $50 per ton more than pig irou. The duty on spiegel iron containing 20 per cent, of manganese or less should be at least $12 per ton, and ferro-manganese for every unit of manganese above 20 per cent, should pay an additional duty of 20 cents per unit of mangauese, which would be, say, $24 per ton duty on the highest grade, 80 per cent, ferro-manganese. Out of a total import of about 100,000 tons pig for the 9 months ending September 30, 1885, about 50,000 tons were high grade spiegel iron and fero- manganese, showing the utter inadequacy of the existing duty to enable home production of these special irous. Tin plate, which is 95 percent, sheet iron, pays less duty than the iron sheets of which it is made, and consequently the manufacture in this country is killed. We would respectfully protest against tbe expression in the Secretary’s letter call- ing duties “ taxes on the imported article.” This word “ tax ” gives rise to misapprehen- sion and misconstruction. It seems to sanction tbe doctrine of the free traders(which we utterly deny, aud which we cannot believe that the Secretary admits), that every duty is a tax on the consumer. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 407 We would further respectfully protest against any agitation tending to lower the rates of duty. Business is now passing through a cycle of low prices. There are sigDs of improvement. But if we are to have a six months’ discussion in Congress with doubtful result, business will simply bait to wait for the outcome, as no man will buy to-day wbat be may get cheaper six months hence. We have no great con- fidence that our protest will be regarded, as our past experience lias not shown us that Congressmen either know or care much for the wishes of the business community. We would further state as our deliberate conviction that any material reduction in the present duties on iron in its various forms will close three-fourths of the es- tablishments in this country and transfer the manufacture to Europe. That may he desirable in the eyes of a pure cosmopolitan humanitarian, but as American citizens we cannot approve of it. Wm. A. Ingham, chairman, president Rockhill Iron and C. Co., Huntingdon County, (Central Pennsylvania district) ; Frank S. Witherbee, Cedar Point I. and S. Co., Port Henry, N. Y., (Lake Champlain district) ; Henry S. Eckert, Henry Clay Furnaces and Topton Iron Co., (Schuylkill Valley district) ; F. A. Comly, president Lougdale Iron Co., Longdale, Va., and treasurer Andover Iron Co., Phillipsburg, N. J. ; Fred’k Prime, vice-president Allentown Iron Co. (Lehigh district), Allentown, Pa. ; J. Wesley Pull- man, treasurer West Point Iron Co. (Hudson River district), Cold Spring, N. Y. [Edward Nichols, pig-iron.'] Hermitage, Ga., October 10, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Washington , I). G.: Dear Sir : Your favor of August 4, referring to duties on merchan- dise, &c., is at hand, and in reply would say that the branch of manu- factures which I am interested iu, viz, pig irou, is subject to a specific duty, and hence not included in those dutiable articles about which you ask information. The present duty of $6.72 per ton I do not consider too high, as, after personal investigation of the labor question in this country and abroad, I believe this does not fully cover the actual money (purchasing value) difference of wages paid here and in Europe. * # # # # # * We have buildings worth $75,000, and about 3,000 acres of land. Taking the amount of money paid for cutting wood as a basis for cal- culation, 1 should say that we paid labor nearly twice as much as is paid to laborers in Sweden who do the same class of work iu charcoal- iron making. Truly yours, EDWARD NICHOLS. [The Ashland Coal and Iron Railway Company, pig-iron.'] Ashland, Ky., August 28, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular as to tariff laws, we beg leave to say that “specific duties” on pig-iron only will prevent fraud and that generally on iron and steel duties should be specific. If . as can hardly be questioned, the duty is intended to be protective, an ad valorem duty gives least protection when most needed, thus de- feating part of its purpose. Very respectfully, JOHN MEANS. 408 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The Baltimore Iron Company, pig-iron.'] Baltimore, August 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning : My Dear Sir : In response to your request of July 17 I here with give you cost of 1 ton coke pig-iron in Baltimore : Ore per ton of pig-iron $8 00 Lime to flux 50 Coke per ton pig-iron 5 00 Labor at furnace only 2 00 Contingent expenses 1 50 Interest, managing, taxes, &c 1 00 13 00 Of the above cost, 817 is labor or its equivalent, as the natural values are 2J tons ore in tlie ground, worth 50 cents, and 2J tons coal, worth 50 cents; therefore, as England pays 45 per cent, less for her labor than we do, the duty on one ton pig-iron should be 87.65. I congratulate you on your management of the revenue, and hope you will effectually stop all undervaluations. I believe that when you honest Democrats examine the tariff question in all its bearings you will be stronger protectionists than we Republicans. You cannot get votes unless you favor protection, because the laborer now knows that free trade means low wages or foreign goods. Yours, very truly, HORACE L. BROOKE, President. [The same.] Baltimore, August 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury : My Dear Sir: In response to your request of July 17 I herewith give you cost of 1 ton of charcoal pig-iron in Baltimore : Ore per ton iron $8 75 Flux (lime) 50 Wood 8 00 Labor at furnace only 3 00 Contingent expenses 1 50 Interest, managing, taxes, &c 1 00 22 75 Of the above, 820.75 is labor or its equivalent, as the natural values are, 3 cords wood on the stump, 81.50, and 2J tons ore in the ground, worth 50 cents ; and as Spain, the only country that sends charcoal pig- iron to this country, pays less than half what we pay for labor, the tariff on 1 ton charcoal pig-iron should be 810. Yours, very truly, HORACE L. BROOKE, * President. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 409 [E. L. Harper & Co., pig-iron and ores.'] Cincinnati, August 16, 1885. Sir : Replying to your esteemed circular letter of 4th instant, solicit- ing views and suggestions as to reforms in the tariff, we beg to say that we are interested directly in pig-iron and ores oidy, the duties upon which are specific, and in our judgment adequate and satisfactory to the American people, and we trust will not be disturbed. Yery respectfully, your obedient servants, E. L. HARPER & CO. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury United States , Washington , D. G. [Lobdell Car Wheel Company, car wheels , pig-iron , <$'C.] Wilmington, Del., August 28, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). G. : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular asking for information in rela- tion to the tariff laws, I would say: First. That I think it very important that all duties should be specific; and if they are so levied I believe that much trouble and expense in col- lecting them will be saved and much fraud be prevented. Second. The largest part of our business is in the manufacture of chilled railroad wheels, chilled rolls, and castiugs of iron and brass. These do not come in competition with like articles made in other countries ; hence we are not directly interested in the amount of duties imposed on this class of articles. We are, however, indirectly inter- ested in the general prosperity of the country, which prosperity regu- lates the demand for our products. This demand is always greater and the prices more remunerative when the country is prosperous and the finances of the country are in a sound condition, with the balance of trade in favor of the United States. The prosperity of the agriculturist, the manufacturer, the artisan, the mercantile and all other classes, and a sound condition of the finances of the country, cannot, in my opinion, be maintained without liberal protection on all articles that can be grown or made in this country. I believe that the stability and perpe- tuity of the Republic depends on the intelligence and prosperity of the American laborer. I am, therefore, in favor of such rates of duties as will enable the people of this country to produce or manufacture every- thing that our soil, climate, forests, mines, and manufactories are capa- ble of producing, and this, too, without being compelled to reduce the compensation of the laborer of the country to the low rate paid in other countries. This company also manufactures charcoal pig-iron, which is used in making railroad wheels and chilled rolls. This product comes into di- rect competition with charcoal pig-iron made in Austria, Italy, Spain, and Sweden, and should be protected. A large portion of the cost of a ton of pig-iron is for labor — labor in cutting and coaling the wood, mining the ore, hauling the coal and ore, and in smelting the ore. In view of this fact, and considering the great difference between the cost of labor in this country and that in European countries, I think that there should be a duty of not less than $10 per ton on all pig-iron im- ported that is smelted with charcoal. Yours, respectfully, GEORGE G. LOBDELL, President. 410 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [William Paulsen, lead.] New York, August 13, 1885. Treasury Department, Washington , D. C. : Sir: Learning that your Department is desirous of receiving some information about the position of lead in the United States, I beg to submit the following facts. Four fifths of the lead production of the United States is produced as a bi product of silver, of which large quantities are used for trade dollars’ worth. Our lead production of late years amounted to about 130,000 tons; of this about 70,000 tons is used for the manufacture of paint, yielding a production of about 84,000 tons of white lead, on which we have an import duty of 3 cents per pound, amounting to $5,644,800, a tax which is paid principally by people living in wooden structures, thus the middle or poorer classes. The duty on lead for other purposes is 2 cents per pound, thus on 60,000 tons amounting to $2,688,000 ; thus we have an annual tax on lead of $8,332,800, with no benefit to the Treasury of the United States, because what little we receive from foreign lands, about 3,000 tons per annum, is principally used by the Standard Oil Company for soldering of oii cans, and the duty refunded when exported. Another serious effect of the high duty on lead experienced by our Eastern factories is that the Western factories, being so much nearer the source of supply, can manufacture white lead so much cheaper than the Eastern factories, and not being contented with their home markets for the sale of white lead, they flood the Eastern markets with their surplus at such low prices as to make competition of Eastern factories impossible; thus it is not only the consumer of lead products who is taxed to the amount of $8,332,800 per annum, but millions of dollars invested in lead works become almost worthless, and all this apparently for the benefit of our silver kings only. Very respectfully, WM. PAULSEN. [The Colwell Lead Company, pig-lead.] New York, August 4, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary United States Treasury : Dear Sir: In repl 3 T to your favor of July 31, we beg leave to say that we favor ad valorem duties for Government protection, and believe them more equitable to importers generally than specific. The princi- pal article in which we are interested is pig-lead, which pays a specific duty of 2 cents per pound, altogether too high. It can be laid down in New York to-day at 2.80 cents per pound, and has within six months been delivered at our docks at 2.40 cents. The duties on pig lead, old lead, scrap lead, and lead dross could be reduced one-half with advan- tage both to producers and consumers. As it stands now it is only ben- eficial to speculators who are interested in getting up “corners” on domestic lead. Respectfully, Colwell Lead Company, JOHN HOOPER, President. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 411 [The Indianapolis Rolling Mill Company, railroad iron. J Indianapolis, Ind., August 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: You ask me for my views on the tariff question, and briefly I will say that I claim to know but little of the subject. In my judg- ment our laws should be revised and changed to suit new values and times and new wants, and principally because the specific system is the more easily assessed and administered, is the best adapted in most all cases to a country like ours. The tariff in a large number of cases should be lowered. Possibly in a few cases it should be advanced. It would not do at all now to adopt the present old tariff laws and lower the duty by a fixed per cent., as proposed by Mr. Morrison, of Illinois, last year. Our people are industrious, ingenious, and thrifty. Ne.w methods and inventions have in many cases lowered values. What was perhaps good tariff law a few years ago is not now ; and good tariff law to-day may not be a few years hence. Protection in many cases is no longer a necessity, as in former times; therefore I repeat, it would be wise for the next Congress to revise and simplify carefully our tariff laws, and the duties wherever applicable should be made specific in preference to ad valorem. I have been engaged for many years in the manufacture of railroad rails, and my observation has been principally confined to iron and steel and the products thereof. The rail business has been seriously depressed for two years past, but it cannot be attributed to evasion of the tariff law. With high regard, I am, respectfully, yours, AQUILLA JONES, President Indianapolis Bolling Mill Company. [Robert Friedrichs, Bessemer steel rods.] New York, October 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , I). C. : Dear Sir: As you will notice in the annexed original letter of the Societe Commereiale Beige, of Charleroi, Belgium, the price of Besse- mer steel rods is the same for the Nos. 5 and 6 wire-gauge, i. e ., £4 16s. per ton, f. o. b., Antwerp (per ton 2,240 pounds). On importing them, the writer was informed yesterday by Mr. L. McMullen, ap- praiser, that the duties on the No. 5 are 0.6 cent per pound ; on the No. 6, 45 per cent, ad valorem. The ton equals 2,240 pounds ; at 0.6 cent per pound will be $13.44 per ton. The ton at £4 16s., less 2J per cent., £4 13s. 6 tf. ; at $4.8665, $22.87 ; at 45 per cent., $10.29 per ton. To illustrate, to make clear, there is not as much difference between the two sizes as there is between the two fingers next to the middle finger of your hand, and it is the same material, and the same weight of the one has to pay $13.44 and of the other $10.29 as duties. All that difference is duties, over $3 per ton, for a hair’s difference, so to say, in size on one and the same article. Notice, please, that the two wires, being of the same weight, cost in Europe the same price. As it is desirable to bring into a consistent whole the various anom- 412 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. alies of the present tariff (of which this is one), I therefore submit this for your consideration, at the same time asking information from the Department should I be iu error as to the two different duties, so that I may inform my friends abroad. Please to return to me the original letter of the Sochi te Commerciale. Yery respectfully, your obedient ’teervant, ROBERT FRIEDRICHS. [The Passaic Rolling Mill Company, iron and steel.'] Paterson, K J., August 25, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury: Dear Sir : Your circular is duly received. The import duty on iron and steel must of necessity be a specific one instead of ad valorem. By reason of the competition between home manufacturers, whose works have been built up under the fostering care of our tariff system, prices are kept on an equitable footing, and unquestionably very much lower than if we were dependent on a foreign-supply. Sound wisdom would be displayed by the administration and by Con- gress if the tariff subject was let entirely alone. An assurance that no tinkering with present tariff provision, be they good, bad, or indifferent, for a period of years, would go further to- wards a revival of our industries than anything 1 can think of in con- nection with them. Yery respectfully, W. O. FAYERWEATHER, Vice-President. [The American Nickel Works, nickel, cobalt oxide, fc.] Camden, Y. J., October 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir : Answering your circular letter calling for information and suggestions concerning tariff rates upon manufactured goods, I pre- mise that nickel, cobalt oxide, and blue vitriol are the only important products of this establishment, and that I think it inexpedient to expose such trade secrets as the cost of manufacture. Nickel . — The duty upon nickel was reduced in 1883 to one half its former rate (viz., to 15 cents per pound), under circumstances alluded to in the printed statement seut herewith, to which I refer. The range of duties upon other metals is about 40 per cent, to 50 per cent.; apply- ing the lowest of these rates to the foreign price of nickel would produce about 25 cents per pound. I therefore suggest for “nickel, nickel oxide, and alloy of any kind in which nickel is the element of chief value,” the duty of 25 cents per pouud. NTickel in ore and in matte or other crude form should obviously pay lower duty than in its completed form as metal (as is the case with all other metals), though at present nickel material is charged the same duty as the product. I suggest as proper rates on “nickel iu ore, 5 cents per pound on the nickel contained there- in,” and on “ nickel in matte, or other crude form not ready for con- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 413 sumption in the arts, 10 cents per pound on the nickel contained there- in.’ 7 Cobalt oxide, a coloring material used principally by potters and glass- makers, now pays 20 per cent. duty. It should pay a specific duty pro- portionate to duties upon other similar substances, say 30 per cent, upon the foreign cost, which would equal about 60 cents perpouud. I therefore suggest on u cobalt oxide 60 cents per pound.” Cobalt ore, now free, stands almost alone, and was long ago put on the free list, be- cause of its supposed non existence in this country. There is, however, no lack of cobalt ore in the United States, and consistency seems to re- quire a moderate duty upon it. I therefore suggest on “ cobalt in ore” or other crude form not ready for consumption in the arts 10 cents per pound on the cobalt contained therein. Blue vitriol now is subjected to a duty of 3 cents per pound, which is, in my judgment, higher than is necessary. I suggest on “blue vitriol, 2 cents per pound.” Yours, trulv, JOSEPH WHARTON. Note. — The u printed statement ” mentioned will he transmitted seper- ately to Congress. [The Osborne & Cheesman Company.] Ansonia, Conn., July 31, 1885. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: Replying to your circular, will say, first, we are strongly in favor of high tariff*. Would make it prohibitory, but no party could stand that advocated it. Therefore we would lower the duties when it would not affect labor, capital, and the Government revenue. In our metal line the country exports, say, five million per month of copper and matte. While these mines were being developed high duty was nec- essary. It is now 4 cents a pound on copper. It will be good policy, in the interest of protection, to lower the duty to 1 cent, or even place it on free list. On nickel a high duty has failed to develop but one nickel mine, and there is still $100 a ton duty. We have to use for German silver an alloy of copper with nickel. At present the alloy is taxed at same rate as pure nickel. It should only be taxed for the nickel and copper sep- arately. As no mines are likely to be developed by further protection, and the foreign price being about 50 cents a pound, and being in nature of raw material, 5 cents a pound should be enough duty. We buy all our yarns. We think, however, that the duty should not be lowered. But the duty on goods made of glazed yarns, such as hat bands, should be materially increased, as the duty seems to be less than the duty on the yarns. Duty should be partly specific to prevent frauds. We have about $200,000 invested in metals and $100,000 in textiles. Respectfully, Osborne & Cheesman Company. 414 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The Scovil Manufacturing Company, brass manufactures .] The business of the Scovill Manufacturing Company is primarily the manufacture of wrought or rolled brass. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. (Zinc in slabs is known in com- merce and in our business as “spelter.”) This alloy varies from 60 per cent, copper to 40 per cent, spelter to a mixture containing not more than 3 to 4 per cent, of spelter. Brass is worked cold, and cannot well be worked hotj but pure cop- per is usually worked hot, as is also a lower alloy of these same metals known as “yellow metal,” and used for ship sheathing, and containing 50 per cent, or more of spelter. The spelter is sometimes partially or wholly replaced by tin. When wholly replaced thus the alloy is known as “bronze.” These various alloys have trade names more or less descriptive, as “high brass,” “low brass,” “gilding metal,” “oreide,” “plater’s brass,” &c. None of these define or limit the composition accurately, there being many grades of alloy suited to various purposes, and all grouped under a few general names. There are also various conditions of the product which are purely mechanical, and have designations, such as “hard,” “half-hard,” “soft,” “black,” “bright,” “spring,” &c. The manufacture of german silver, sometimes called “nickel silver,” is an adjunct of the sheet-brass business, the composition being the same, with an addition of from 4 to 25 per cent, of nickel. The manu- facture of wire and tubing is usually, but not always, connected with that of brass. The manufacture of brass as such is considered as complete when it is rolled into sheets, and in this condition it is sent to market. A portion of it is used in sheets of same size for such purposes as locomotive bands, sign-plates, &c., but by far the greater part is re- manufactured, and of itself constitutes a “raw material” for other industries. This company, as well as most others in the business, not ouly manu- factures brass, german silver, and wire, but remanufactures these into many other articles. There are staple articles, such as kerosene-oil burners, lamps, brass hinges, buttons, &c., which are made year after year with only such changes as the market may demand. But in addi- tion to staple goods of this sort, orders are continually received for limited amounts of every variety of article into which sheet brass can be made, amounting in the number of articles on our list to thousands. Orders of this sort we are always ready to fill, provided the quantity desired and the price are such as to make it an object. The copper used is mostly American, and the market price is variable, being at present from 11 to 11£ cents per pound. The spelter is part Americau, worth 6 to 8 cents, and part foreign (mostly Silesian), worth 4^ to 5 cents. Both American and foreign nickel are used. The present price is about 75 cents per pound. The tin is foreign, and worth about 18 to 20 cents. In the process of manufacture the alloy is cast into ingots and rolled to the desired thickness, which varies from an inch to that of tissue paper, requiring in the one case two or three rollings and in the other twenty or thirty. It will be seen that no very definite statement of cost can be given. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 415 but the expense of bringing the bar to its finished state (not including the cost of the alloy itself) probably ranges from 3 cents to 12 cents per pound. The wages of the men employed at this work, some of which is done by the piece or pound, vary from $1.25per day to $4, or even more in case of piece-work requiring considerable skill. The materials consumed are coal, wood, crucibles, oil, acids, iron, fire- brick and fire clay, cotton waste, tow, sundry fluxes, &c. To these ex- penses are to be added, transportation, packing, superintendence, waste in process, insurance, repairs, and interest on plant. A mill capable of producing 3,000,000 pounds per annum, with all the necessary conveniences, will cost approximately $150,000 to $200,000, and the stock to be carried, say $50,000 more, giving employment to about 150 men, and requiring 250 to 300 horse power. Water was for- merly used, but now steam is mostly relied upou. The foregoing is intended as a reply to the first three inquiries. 4. It will be seen from the foregoing that there is great difficulty in fixing a specific duty on products of this sort, owing to the fact that there is no technical terminology sufficiently descriptive and sufficiently limited in its application to describe the articles or the condition they are in with reference to costot production, for the reason that the same name is given in the trade to a finished product in many different conditions, and varying very largely in value. If we considered the case of the remanufactured goods the same difficulty will be even more apparent. Take, for example, metal buttons. It would be difficult to give a more specific class name, and yet this company manufacture metal buttons each of which contain three or more pieces, and which sell for 7 cents per gross, while other metal buttons containing only two parts sell for $15 per gross, or even more. An expert might, perhaps, point out a few cases, such as of wire drawn beyond a specified degree of fiueness, or German silver contain- ing more than a specified per cent, of nickel, and perhaps a few others, in which a specific duty might be applied with good result; but in most- cases the application of these rules would probably be too difficult to render them desirable. So far as I can now see, this difficulty of finding specific description which shall convey any just idea of value seems to apply to everything in our department of manufacture. (5) The manufacture of sheet- brass is the leading industry of the Naugatuck Yalley, and Waterbury is the place where the business was first established, and is still its most important center. It is 22 miles by the nearest road to water carriage (New Haven), and from about 1830, when the business first began to develop, until 1849, when the Naugatuck Railroad was opened, all transportation was by wagon, over country roads. This would seem to be a fatal obstacle ni a business requiring so much heavy freight — and at the present time perhaps it would; but it is the experience of all manufacturers that a business thrives best where most of it is done. The whole community becomes to some extent educated to that business, all collateral facili- ties group themselves about it, and these adjuncts compensate for many disadvantages. The brass business of the Naugatuck Yalley was es- tablished by great exertion and in the face of serious difficulties such as new enterprises at this day seldom encounter; but when it was once established, the reasons above named probably enabled it to continue its hold here in spite of seemingly unfavorable circumstances. The character of labor required iu the manufacture of metal goods is 416 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. believed to be, as a rule, of a higher grade, more intelligent, more skilled, more permanent than most of that employed in the manufacture of the woven fabrics. In this valley wages have been uniformly good, labor- ers prosperous, largely the owners of their own homes — a very desirable feature in all industrial communities. Taxes here are heavy (about 27 mills on the dollar on a rather mod- erate valuation, say three-fourths), as is apt to be the case in growing towns, and the bulk of them are paid by the manufacturing corpora- tions, as they represent the aggregated capital. We have sometimes believed that some goods sold in competition with our own came into the country at a lower rate of duty than they ought on account of failure to distinguish among goods of the same gen- eral name those of higher cost ; but for the most part these difficulties could hardly be reached by specific duties, and so far as we know the extent of them is not great. Respectfully submitted. SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY. [Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co., electro-plated ware.] Wallingford, Conn., August 10, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary : Dear Sir : Your circular in relation to laying duties on imports, ad- dressed to our firm, was duly received and carefully read. In response we will say that we both import and export, and we have rather fa vored the ad valorem plan to the specific as a rule, and our reason is that we have thought the ad valorem plan is the fairest and simplest — the fairest, because those who indulge in the most costly articles are likely to pay a fairer proportion of taxes towards the support of our Govern- ment, there being so many qualities of goods that the specific plan is made more difficult. Yet we do not set ourselves up as critics, and are unable to follow the details of articles to say how one should bear to the other. In regard to importers evading the laws, our opinion is that much depends on efficient and faithful men in charge of customs, and those who are not willing tools in the hands of importers ; and when a rogue is detected, see to it that he suffers the penalty according to the law. Very respectfully, SIMPSON, HALL, MILLER & CO. S. [Naylor & Co., iron and steel.] New York, August 1, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , Z). G. : Sir : In reply to your circular letter of the 31st ultimo, we have the honor to state that on principle we prefer specific to ad valorem duties, but in the articles in which we deal, metals, we have not experienced injury from undervaluations by others, and we do not see how any serious undervaluations could possibly take place without discovery. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 417 We have suffered rather more from the ignorance of consuls and local appraisers, who have been very arbitrary in their action in raising values. That the whole tariff schedule on iron and steel is in a sad state of in- congruity, and that the duties now levied are unreasonably high, with very slight exceptions, admits of no doubt, but inasmuch as we are, as importers, interested in having duties low, a schedule such as you pro- pose we should furnish as to the rates of specific duty which, in our opinion, should be levied, &c., would naturally strike you as beiug made from a personal and not from a national interest, so that we should rather forego the privilege you kiudly offer us. What we would, how- ever, say, and in that we think the majority of those either in favor of protection or free trade would bear us out, is that constant changes are to be deprecated, and we infinitely prefer the present incongruous tariff to the prospect of doubt and uncertainty as to what changes are likely to take place. Should you at any time desire our personal views, we shall be happy to wait upon you at Washington. We are, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servants, NAYLOR & CO. [Tlie American Bronze Powder Manufacturing Company, bronze powder.] New York, August 30, 1885. Hon. Daniel Mannings, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Most Honorable Sir : In compliance with your request, as per cir- cular of August 1, 1885, we take great pleasure in laying before you such facts as we are able to serve you with, and with your kind permission will submit to you our explanations in as detailed a form as possible, hoping that your earnest endeavors to correct many of the evils of our present tariff will be productive of much good to every honest importer, manufacturer, and dealer, and be a crowning glory to the present ad- ministration. Our business — that of manufacturing bronze powder — is a young en- terprise in this country, and our present corporation is so far the only one jiow in operation. But were it not for some special machinery in- vented by ourselves, and now in use by our company, we cannot but admit that competing with foreign cheap labor and possible practiced undervaluation we would be compelled to succumb with some other do- mestic manufacturers now out of existence, and for the subjoined reasons : Our productions, bronze-powders, are most difficult to judge, except by an expert, and we deem it safe to assert that not more than five or six actual expert judges could be found in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston, from which cities more than nine-tenths of these goods are dis- tributed. How easy, then, for some unscrupulous importer to evade the import duty, now only 15 per cent, ai valorem. It is a known fact that a very great proportion of bronze powder is now sold from at 42 to 70 cents per pound, which cannot be produced here where the best copper is mined and marketed, unless sold at an actual loss. The principal factories for these articles are located in Fiirth and Niirnberg, in Bava- ria, and some smaller villages in that region, where labor is so very much cheaper than here, that it may be called pauper labor, indeed, as per following schedule of wages both here and in Europe : S. Ex. 72 27 418 REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OE THE TREASURY. Table of wages in Europe and ike United States. Occupation. Wages in Europe. Occupation. Wages in United States. 1 foreman Marks. 60 40 40 35 35 20 80 30 24 72 24 24 30 1 foreman $25 00 26 00 15 00 24 00 9 00 36 00 9 00 9 00 10 00 12 00 36 00 10 00 1 beater 1 beater Do Do Do 2 beaters at $12 Do 1 bcy. Per L. New York Knife Co., Per THM. BBADLEY, Pres. The Upson & Hart Co., By H. C. HABT, Sechj. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 427 [James L. Cowles, cutlery, j Farmington ,. Conn ., November 25, 1885. To Hon. Daniel Manning-, Secretary of the Treasury ; Dear Sir : I have not been honored with a copy of your circular re- specting the tariff, but I am interested in the manufacture of table cut- lery to the extent of some $8,000, and as my opinions are directly op- posite to those expressed in the resolutions of the cutlery manufacturers at their meeting in New York on the 1st of October last, I venture to send you this letter, although it is very late. These resolutions, which have just come to my hand, demand that a tariff tax of 35 per cent, ad valorem be laid on foreign cutlery, because day wages in this country are 30 to 40 per cent, higher than in Sheffield, England. But day wages do not offer a just basis on which to determine the labor cost in any article of cutlery. This work is nearly all done by the piece, and it is altogether probable that although day wages are higher in this country than elsewhere, yet the labor cost of a table knife or fork is actually less here than in Sheffield or anywhere else. The American operative turns out a greater product in a day than any foreign com- petitor. It is, I think, universally admitted that the Englishman who comes to America turns out more work after he has been a few months in our shops than he ever did at his old home. But if any manufacturers of cutlery in the world can supply the wants of the people of the United States at a less cost to the consumer than we of Connecticut, then it is our business to give up the manufacture of cutlery and do something else. We can’t find our mistake too soon. If, however, we can have free coal, free steel, free lumber, &c., if the United States Government will allow us the free use of our harbors and free ships to sail from those harbors, then I have no fear of Connecti- cut’s ability to compete with Sheffield, not only in our own Inarket, but wherever the American flag can carry our products. To-day our raw materials may be as low as in England, but on the first dawn of pros- perity the coni and iron lords will combine to mulct us. The trouble with the cutlery business of New England and with every other legiti- mate industry is lack of markets for our goods, and it is the tariff that is depriving us of our markets both at home and abroad. It was mere retaliation on the part of the French that led to the French decree excluding American pork from France, and a similar spirit has actuated the governments of Germany, Austria, and Russia in their recent tariff legislation. I was in Europe from August, 1880, to August, 1883, and I had many opportunities to learn of the effect of our tariff legislation on the minds of the people. The French exclusion of pork has deprived the Western farmer of a valuable market for the pork which we could not consume, and it has thus deprived him of the power to buy New England cutlery, The only product of Connecticut’s soil is skilled men. She imports each year from without her borders $100,000,000 raw material — iron, coal, copper, lead, lumber, &c. — for their use. The tariff adds to the cost of these materials not less than $10,000,000 annually. At the same time it shuts us out of the markets of South America, Australia, and Africa by its threats to confiscate 40 per cent, of the products of those countries, which, except for the tariff, would be exchanged for our finished goods. * I have been a stockholder in many manufacturing enterprises in the village of Unionville, Conn., where the Upson and Hart Cutlery Com- 428 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. pany are located. I built tlie factory which they occupy. My father founded the village. An experience of twenty years has proven to rue that our high tariff has not been a blessing but a curse to us. In that interval the largest concern in the village, a concern wonderfully suc- cessful from its foundation in 1848 to 1860, has lost all its property and has been reorganized. Another in which I was a considerable stockholder was organized in 1866. It was a direct product of the era of inflated currency and high tariff. It hasn’t yielded 3 per cent, to its owners. The Standard Rule and Level Company owes its birth to the same mother. The high tariff enabled the rule-makers to combine and monopolize the American mar- ket. For a brief season they reaped high profits. Shrewd business men in the village, Mr. Andrew A. Upson among them, were deceived, and we formed a joint-stock company with a capital of $30,000. Before the first year was ended the combination broke, and we had lost $10,000. We reduced the capital and increased it again with a like result. And within a year the capital has yet again been reduced ; this time one- half, and again increased. How, sir, it seems to me that we have had enough of congressional protection. There are many of us, and every day the number is grow- ing, who feel that there can be no stable prosperity until the principle of protection or spoliation is entirely eliminated from the tariff. It is a significant fact that in 1857, after ten years of experience of the low tariff of 1846, when it was proposed to enact a tariff law mak- ing duties still lower, almost every Hew Englander at Washington voted in favor of the bill. There were no opponents, 1 think, save from Ver- mont. Again, when the honorable gentleman from Vermont introduced the famous protective tariff bill of 1860, he acknowledged that it was not the manufacturer’s bill. The manufacturer’s bill was that of 1857. The bill of 1860 was introduced not to benefit Hew England, but to hire Pennsylvania to go with the republican party. Very respectfully, yours, JAMES L. COWLES, Farmington , Conn. [Biddle Hardware Company, cutlery. ] Philadelphia, October 20, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary , Treasury Department , Washington , D. C. : In reply to your circular of July 24, would say that, as importers of hardware, we have no cause to complain of ad valorem duties. Such goods as we import largely could not have their value fixed in any other way. We refer to pocket cutlery, razors, &c. Anvils, chains, &c., pay specific duties now. We believe that cheap grades of pocket cutlery, particularly German, have been very much undervalued. The only remedy for this is to have your appraisers thorough cutlery men, who can detect this when pass- ing the goods through the appraisers’ Stores. We suffer more from this continual agitation of the tariff question, and would suggest that the present tariff be honesty and economically collected and allowed to remain as it is for at least ten years. Our ex- perience leads us to believe that a high tariff produces low prices, by build- ing up large manufacturing concerns, who, in competing for trade, re- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 429 duce prices ; that the articles that have the heaviest protection are the lowest in price, for instance, screws and files. On both of these arti- cles the tariff is almost prohibitory, yet they are now sold so low in this country that it would not pay to import if the tariff was entirely re- moved. Your friend, BIDDLE HAEDWARE COMPANY. [Joseph C. Grubh & Co fire-arms.'] Philadelphia, September 25, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. : Dear Sir: Your circular letter of July 24 last, relative to the adop- tion of specific instead of ad valorem duties, has received our careful consideration. The great variety in fire-arms, their material, appurte- nances, and articles sold in connection with them, renders the appli- cation of specific duties to them a matter of extreme difficulty, and it would only be successfully done after many years of experiment in that direction. If, in applying the system of duties, these goods are classi- fied as to quality, finish, prices, &c., so as to place a higher rate of duty on the more costly grades, the door is temptingly opened to the dishon- est importer to have such articles undervalued in order to avoid the higher rate of duty, and no more protection is secured to the honest im- porter than is afforded under the present ad valorem system. It is our opinion that, except in the line of sporting fire-arms, there is little or no cause for complaint by reason of undervaluation, and even in these arms it is infrequent, owing no doubt in a great measure to the care and knowledge of the appraiser of customs. We have heard or known of few instances, and two of them of recent occurrence, at this port. Specific duties might safely be levied on the following articles, of which only the lower grades in quality and price are imported into this country, the higher or finer grades being almost totally unmarketable: Duty on each piece. Single-barrel shot-guns, muzzle-loading $0 60 Single-barrel muskets, smooth-bore 75 Single-barrel shot-guns, breech-loading 1 00 Single-barrel rifles, muzzle- loading, all styles 2 00 Single-barrel sporting rifles, breech-loading, made to shoot bulleted percus- cussion caps, and commonly known as Flobert or saloon rifles 1 50 Single-barrel sporting rifles, breech-loading, not rifled 1 00 Single-barrel sporting rifles, breech-loading 2 50 Single-barrel military rifles, breech-loading 3 50 Double-barrel shot-guns, muzzle-loading 1 50 Double-barrel shot-guns, muzzle-loading, weighing over 11 pounds 3 00 Double-barrel rifle and shot-guns, muzzle-loading 2 50 Per cent. On all other styles and qualities of Are- arms, including breech-loading shot- guns, ad valorem duty 35 Pistols of every quality and description, ad valorem duty 45 Gun materials, ammunition of all kinds, sporting articles, and percussion caps, ad valorem duty *. 45 The above ad valorem rates are the same as fixed under the existing tariff. We remain, yours, very truly, JOS. C. GRUBB & CO. 430 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Le Gierse & Co., undervaluation.'] Galveston, Tex., August 0, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G.: Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your circular of July 28 , wherein you state that investigations have shown that tariff laws where duties are levied ad valorem are largely evaded, and asking the advice of merchants, whose just interests, as well as those of the Gov- ernment, are dependent upon an honest administration of tariff* laws. My own experience affords but a limited scope for observation, inas- much as most of the articles of my own importation are not subject to ad valorem duties ; but in that very fact appears room for an inquiry why our port, w 7 ith its facilities for importing, is almost wholly confined to the importation of goods paying either a specific duty or appear on the free list. Galveston importers have never found it to their inter- ests to engage in the importation of goods subject to ad valorem duties, for the reason that other ports have always been able to import that to class of merchandise and material in such a way as to supply markets naturally tributary to our port at figures that would represent a loss to our importers, but must contain a profit for those more favored or less scrupulous. Though Galveston importers have all the facilities of ample capital and means of reaching distributory chaunels, they are virtually debarred from handling certain lines of foreign articles, and therefore my personal experience does not warrant me in suggesting de- tails of desired changes. As the investigations already made by your Department have shown that evasions are practiced, it may be super- fluous for me to direct myself to calling your attention to circumstances in support of the conclusions you have reached; but I have it in confi- dence from friends who are engaged in the importation of silks in New York that it is to their interest to have certain other importers under- take the transportation and receipt of their consignments. The house referred to sends its buyer abroad twice each year, has every facility for making its own importations, yet finds it advantageous to have its own purchases transferred abroad to others, who are perhaps less sensi- tive as to the nature of an oath. I do not know that this state of affairs still exists under the new administration. While on this subject it may not be out of place for me to say that your efforts in the direction of an honest administration of the laws as they exist, and your purpose to make these still more effective, are greatly appreciated by the business men with whom I come into con- tact, and I have no doubt that you will also institute a much-needed reform in the manner of inspecting personal effects of travelers coming into our country. On several occasions I have felt humiliated by the unblushing effrontery of New York customs officials in their treatment of travelers. Openly holding themselves out to be bribed, they seemed to take especial delight to annoy and incommode those who were hon- est enough to prefer paying to the Government wJiat was due rather than to fee the officer, while those who had nothing.liable to duty were subjected to every harassment. Wishing you success in your commendable efforts in the direction of justice and right, I have the honor to remain, very respectfully, yours, M. LASKER. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 431 [Thos. G. Shearman, specific and ad valorem duties. ] Dresden, September 18, 1885. Hoik Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , I). C. : Dear Sir : Although I do not belong to the class to whom you ad* , dressed your recent circular asking for information with regard to the expediency of changing ad valorem duties into specific rates, yet I trust that suggestions from those who belong only to the class of consumers, and who therefore finally pay all such taxes, with no power to shift the burden upon others, much less to profit by the maintenance of taxa- tion, will not be received by the present administration with such abso- lute indifference, not to say contempt, as has been the case for many year^ past. For twenty years it has apparently been the doctrine of the Government that the real tax payers had nothing to do with tax laws except to jiay the taxes. That maxim, I am sure, will not be ad- hered to by you. For years past I have carefully read all that has been published in discussion of the relative merits of specific and ad valorem duties. These discussions have taken a wide range, and the effects of the one and the other upon the interests of the Government, the importer, and the manufacturer have been fully dealt with; but for fifteen years I have never seen the interest of the real tax-payer, that is, the consumer, taken into account. Now, it may be, as is often asserted, that specific duties are more easily collected, that they put honest importers upon at least an equality with dishonest ones, and that they afford a steadier bounty out of our pockets in favor of the manufacturers of similar articles than can be claimed for ad valorem duties. All this may be true; and nevertheless it remains the fact that these advantages inure to the benefit of less than twenty thousand persons out of more than eighteen millions engaged in gain- ful occupations. The Government officials may have their tasks lightened, but the Government itself is sure to collect whatever income it needs in one way if not in another. Competition among importers may be put upon a fairer footing, but consumers will lose the benefit of cheap prices ; and the interest of manufacturers in the matter is ob- viously opposed to that of all their fellow-citizens. Now, look at this question from the side of the consumer — that is, of the eighteen million real taxpayers. Specific duties are highly oppress- ive, unfair, unequal, and unjust to them; and no method has yet been devised by which they can be made .otherwise. That duties ought al- ways to be estimated upon an ad valorem basis, in. order to work jus- tice among consumers, is too evident to need argument. It is conceded by the universal attempt to ascertain specific duties by an ad valorem calculation. It is obviously unjust that one coat worth only $10 should pay the same tax as another coat worth $50. This is recoguized by the many shadings of specific duties by which it is falsely pretended such rank inequality is avoided. But in fact no method has been devised or suggested by which this gross wrong can be prevented, and the fee- ble attempts which have been made in this direction only combine the evils of both systems with the advantages of neither. The compound system of u 50 cents a pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem” has no de- fenders who dare to state their reasons in public. The more accepted method is, as in the case of steel, to fix a specific rate, of, say, 3 cents a pound on metal worth 10 cents, 4 cents on metal worth 12 .cents, and so on. I write without a copy of the tariff, and do not aim to give 432 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. exact figures. Now, it is plain that such a scale offers greater temptations toa slight undervaluation of 12-cent steel than would ever be given by a purely ad valorem Tariff' of 30 per cent., because an undervaluation of only 5 per cent, would save one cent of the specific duty, whereas it would save only one-fifth of a cent under the purely ad valorem system. This . so-called specific system has, therefore, inevitably been the source of greater frauds than any other. It is also attended with the disadvan- tage of putting a premium on the importation of an inferior class of goods. Thus, in the case already supposed, which is substantially real, the maker of the 12-cent grade of steel is offered a bonus of 1 cent per pound as an inducement to degrade its quality by the trifle neces- sary to bring its cost just below the 12-cent standard. The only way in which these evils can be avoided under the specific system is by put- ting the same duty upon all grades of steel. When this is done steel worth 1 cent a pound must pay the same tax as steel worth 12 cents. This will not only be a gross and flagrant inequality, but it will also bring about the instant ruin of many important domestic manufactures which depend upon the cheap grades of steel. Even the famous con- ference committee which secretly concocted the tariff of 1883 could not be persuaded by the steel lobby of that day to perpetrate such an out- rage. It may therefore be taken as certain that every tariff of specific duties which can be forced through Congress will not only be unequal in its operation, but will also offer special inducements to fraud and to the deterioration of imported goods such as no ad valorem tariff ever did. In the next place, it is self-evident that specific duties must bear more severely on the poor than on the rich. The woolen duties are a signal instance of this. Under the tariff of 1867 the tax on woolen goods of the kind usually worn by farmers and mechanics was from 100 to 200 per cent., and so prohibitory. In the tariff of 1883 an effort was made to relieve the law of this stigma, with the result of reducing the tax on the clothing of the poor to about 85 per cent., which is still prohibitory. But as the tax on the clothing of the rich is now less than 60 per cent., as agaiust 70 per cent, before, the inequality remains sub- stantially as before. Again, a specific tariff on manufactures is a perpetually rising one. It has an automatic tendency towards excessive duties and positive pro- hibition. The progress of invention tends continually to cheapen the cost of manufacture. Specific duties become, year after year, more and more heavy in proportion to the cost of production, until in a very few years a tax which was meant to be. the equivalent of 25 per cent, becomes one of 100 or even 250 per cent. The result is that in many cases our country is absolutely and utterly deprived of valuable improvements which are in full use in Europe, and in a far greater number of cases a monopoly is given to the few makers of similar articles here. For ex- ample, specific duties have utterly excluded from this country the many articles of hard glass, including glass sleepers for railroads, made in Belgium; have deprived us of all the benefit of the Gilchrist Thomas process in steel, and enabled the owners of thirteen mills to make a profit of much more than $13,000,000 out of Bessemer steel. Not one of these results was intended by Congress when fixing the rates of duties on these articles; and, reckless as Congress has been in the past, it is almost certain that not one-fifth of either house would have voted for taxes avowedly intended to have such an effect. These monstrosi- ties could only be produced by inflexible specific duties, and precisely similar results will follow in less than five years after the establishment REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 433 of any specific duties upon a large scale with respect to almost any branch of manufacture in which the spirit of invention is active. It is always the natural impulse of officials to favor a system of rev- enue which will make their tasks easy; but in this, as in many other instances, official ease means public hardship. Importers, too, are much more concerned to secure simplicity and equality in their own transac- tions than to protect the public against excessive taxation, since no exorbitancy of taxation which stops short of an entire destruction of the home demand appeals to their selfish interest, as they collect from their customers all the tax, with a profit on the outlay. But it is the duty of the Government to accommodate its methods to the needs and the rights of the people, and to spare no pains to devise and carry out a system of collecting the revenue which will secure equality among honest importers without producing inequality among consumers. An ad valorem tariff is the only one which is fair to the people at large ; and it is an entire mistake to suppose that it cannot be made to operate fairly among importers. It was the unanimous opinion of ex- perienced importers in 1882, when appearing before the Tariff Commis- sion, that the amount of undervaluation which would take place under a moderate ad valorem tariff, imposing duties not exceeding 25 or 30 per cent., was so small as to be unworthy of consideration. The danger of exposure and of the imposition of the usual penalty is sufficient to deter importers from frauds which could not possibly make for them a large profit, and which might easily result in three or four times the amount of loss. A reduction of the monstrous impositions of the exist- ing tariff is therefore all that is strictly necessary to put an end to under- valuations. But suppose that something more is required, is it not easy to arrange a system of official valuations, by which the prices of similar articles shall be fixed at uniform rates, ascertained monthly or quarterly, and stated in an order of the Treasury Department published for general information? It is possible that this could not be done for every de- scription of merchandise, but it could be done in so many cases as to narrow the field of possible undervaluation to such small limits as to en- able the officials in charge of such matters to confine their labors to a very few articles, with a consequent increased probability of success. A combination of these two simple reforms, the reduction of duties to a moderate standard and a uniform official valuation where possible, would put an end to nine- tenths of the frauds of undervaluation, and make it comparatively easy to detect the remainder. If the manufact- urers and importers will not allow this to be done, it is better that things should be left as they are, for the people at large now have the benefit of most of the cheapness arising from undervaluation, as the competi- tion between dishonest importers will always be active enough to secure to their customers the larger share of the reduction in duty ; the Govern- ment will be sure to get what it needs, and the only persons who really suffer are the two powerful classes who alone stand in the way of the reforms which would cure the whole trouble. With great respect, I remain your obedient servant, THOS. G. SHEARMAN. S. Ex. 72 28 434 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Manufacturers of Rhode Island, specific and ad valorem duties.'] Providence, E. I., October 22, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : At a meeting of manufacturers aucl other business men, held in Providence August 31, 1885, there being in attendance prominent mem- bers of both political parties, and many who had received copies of your circular letter of July last, resolutions were unanimously adopted, of which we herewith send you a copy, and we were further directed by the meeting to acknowledge and reply to your esteemed letter. We shall not feel justified, in this communication, in presenting any argument for the general theory of protection or concerning the ade- quacy or inadequacy of existing tariff schedules for proper protection to industry, for the reason that your inquiry seems to invite our opinion only as to plans for efficient and honest collection of customs duties, whatever their scale. We beg leave to assure you, in the first place, that, in your evident de- sire and intention to rigidly enforce the laws for the honest collection of duties upon imports, and especially to overthrow the long established and deeply intrenched system of fraud upon the revenue and upon all honest industry whether manufacturing or commercial, by undervalua- tions of imported merchandise, you have our sympathy and gratitude, and are entitled to every form and degree of assistance that we are able to render. As you kindly invite information as to the character and extent of current fraud by undervaluation, as well as concerning methods for its suppression, we would say that the conviction is very general among Ehode Island business men that this class of fraud prevails as to nearly all kinds of imports whereon ad valorem duties are assessed, and that its magnitude is heavy. Especially does the abuse prevail as to mer- chandise imported as actual property of foreign owners and handled solely for their account and profit. In our opiuion, the suppression of such frauds was greatly weakened by the action of the Forty-third Congress concerning the law known as the u moiety law,” to which action we will take the liberty to make further reference. The plan of specific rather than ad valorem duties is manifestly sound in principle, especially because of the greater simplicity and accur- acy of administration, and this whether dealing with honest or dishonest importers. So far as concerns the industries with which the business men of Ehode Island are personally conversant, an embarrassment in attempting to formulate any complete s'clierae of specific duties is in the many grades of each class of goods that are manufactured, and especi- ally because of special enterprise in behalf of goods of finer grades than have usually been made in this country. While we by no means assume that no additions should be made to the schedules of manufactured goods dutiable at specific rates, we are of the opinion, as to classes of goods similar to general Ehode Island products, that the substitution of specific for ad valorem duties has been carried as far by the legislation of 1883 as would be, at present, profitable or advisable. A careful comparision of the tariff laws as in force March 3, 1883, wfith the new law as passed on that day, shows the whole number of rates of duty named under the old tariff to be 741, and under the new tariff 641, the excess in number of rates in the old tariff being 100, or 16 per cent. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 435 When classified as to the kind of duty each tariff imposes it appears that — The old has 344 specific, 324 ad valorem, and 73 compound. The new has 360 specific, 250 ad valorem, and 31 compound. Or showing it in per centum : The old has 46 per cent, specific and 54 per cent ad valorem and compound ; the new has 56 per cent specific and 44 per cent, ad valorem and compound, the excess in the old over the new tariff of ad valorem and compound rates being 116 in number, or 41 per cent, of the whole, and the number of u compound rates,’ 7 that especial source of annoyance and perplexity, being reduced from 73 to 31. We submit that this presentation shows a long stride not only in the very important line of simplification, but in large substitution of specific for ad valorem rates, and that it therefore justifies a pause in tariff leg- islation until by the restoration of business to a normal condition it may be possible to place accurate estimates on the results of what has so lately been accomplished. We herein assume as a just principle of industrial legislation, that any abnormal standard of values, whether because of extreme depression or extreme inflation of business, is in- evitably conducive to inaccurate conclusions, and, therefore, that care should be taken to utilize as standards of business or values only normal conditions thereof. We recognize in your letter a disposition to consider a scale of duties on imports based upon the consideration of the excess of cost of Amer- ican over foreign labor of similar class, a principle eminently sound, although its correct application calls for quite intricate computations. Many tables have been prepared, of which illustrations are presented in United States census reports, but such tables if incomplete are likely to lead to quite erroneous conclusions. This special liability to inaccu- racy is because, with a very large majority of our manufacturers, what stands to them as a foundation supply is advanced, often by many stages from the condition of raw material, being the cumulation of the entire labor of possibly several preceding manufacturers, so that while indi- vidual pay-rolls of many manufacturers show only a small proportion of entire cost of product to be labor, the prime cost of actual raw material at its entrance of the first stage of progress will not unlikely be but 10 per cent, or even les’s of the cost of the fabric as ready for the market. We sincerely hope that this very important element of the problem at issue will receive careful consideration, or erroneous conclusions will be probable. The unit of payment for specified labor in piece-work is readily avail- able, as is the amount of average weekly earnings of each class of em- ployment, and these points are so fully presented in the reports of the Massachusetts Bureau of the Statistics of Labor, for 1884 and 1885, com- piled by Hon. Carroll D. Wright, that our own statement in similar be- half would of necessity cover substantially the same ground, because pertaining largely to similar class of industries. An especially valuable feature of this compilation is that it supplies in very well-arranged tables the opportunity for comparison, side by side, of the cost of direct labor in the United States with that in Great Britain, which country, as you are aware, stands as a representative of the highest rank of European labor rates. We respectfully ask you to note also that there are con- siderations not represented in any pay-roll that should equitably be weighed in the study of the problem as to relative cost to manufacture in the Old World and the New. We refer not only to iuterest and de- preciation on account of the inevitable larger cost of American plant 436 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. both for buildings and machinery, but also to the fact that it is an almost imperative claim on our civilization that far more costly provision be made for the health and comfort of employes than is demanded or sup- plied in most European countries. Referring again to the “ moiety law,” important provisions of which were repealed by the 43d Congress, we by no means assume the perfectness of that law as originally drawn, nor do we forget the grave abuses un- der it, but inasmuch as its foundation principle seems sound and in harmony with the general experience of other nations, we cannot but think that the repeal of its vital features, however the law may have needed amendment in some details, was a serious impairment of facility for the honest collection of Government dues. We believe that laws similar in principle and purpose to the u moiety law” are calculated to greatly advance the end you seek to promote, in furnishing ma- chinery indispensable to successful combat with the frauds under con- sideration. The present depressed and unprofitable condition of manufactures and general trade is likely to be still further increased by the agitation for a change in the public policy which has become part of the founda- tion upon which those interests rest. To restore confidence it is neces- sary that all elements of uncertainty shall be kept at the minimum, as a measure of prudence applicable alike to the statesman and business- man, and furthermore the opinion is prevalent that the detailed infor- mation sought, if obtained under the present abnormal condition of business, would, as a basis of legislation, be unjust to both capital and labor. In conclusion, we assure you that the manufacturers of Rhode Island have undergone a very severe strain during a long period of depression, and that, with all the advantage attaching to the fact that the manage- ment of our factories and a large measure of the capital employed is in the hands of men thoroughly trained to their business by actual working experience, men who began at the foot of the ladder and are practically skilled in every department of their work, it has been only by hQavy sacrifice that labor has been employed and paid for these many months past. Although the horizon seems to have brightened, the strain of anxiety has not yet been removed, and the current expectation of leg- islation, as to which few of its advocates give any sign of harmony of views, provokes serious alarm and promises to greatly check the much- needed revival of business. The present laws are not perfect nor alto- gether satisfactory, but we think the feeling to be well-nigh unanimous that the present is an especially inopportune time for tariff legislation, and that the interests, not only of capital and labor employed in manu- facturing, but of nearly every form of enterprise, will be promoted by a postponement of any general tariff revision. We remain, with much respect, yours, truly, 0. R. Cutler. % ' Robert Knight. Henry B. Metcalf. F. E. Richmond. Royal C. Taft. A. B. Chace. F. H. Richmond. Jos. E. Cole. Edward P. Taft. Fred. I. Marcy. W. T. Nicholson. Stephen A. Jenks. W. F. Sayles. Hezekiah Conant. Geo. H. Corliss. . Horatio Rogers. Chas. Fletcher. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 437 Resolutions adopted at a meeting of manufacturers and other business men held in Providence, R. I., August 31, 1885, whereof the Hon. Charles R. Cutler was chair- man and Horatio Rogers secretary, referred to in the accompanying letter, viz : Whereas the industries of Rhode Island have been subjected to a long period of de- pression, severely taxing the resources of both the manufacturers and their employ6s, commercial confidence haviDg been universally impaired ; and Whereas, although there are indicatious of a more hopeful state of affairs, all in- dustrial enterprise is still in a condition of extreme sensitiveness; and Whereas the Honorable Secretary of the Treasury has addressed to many of us a circular letter which seems to contemplate a plan of general tariff revision at the coming session of Congress ; and Whereas we believe that any such attempted general revision of the tariff would be exceedingly disastrous to the entire industrial interests of the country: Resolved, That this meeting hereby enters its respectful protest against any reopen- ing of tariff agitation at the coming session of Congress. After the adoption of the above resolutions the following were appointed a committee to frame a reply to the Honorable Secretary of the Treasury’s circular dated July, 1885, in regard to tariff revision, viz: Messrs. C. R. Cutler, Henry B. Metcalf, William F. Sayles, William T. Nicholson, F. E. Richmond, Charles Fletcher, Stephen A. Jenks, Royal C. Taft, Arnold B. Chace, Robert Knight, F. H. Richmond, Hezekiah Conant, Edward P. Taft, George H. Corliss, Fred. I. Marcy, Joseph E. Cole, and Horatio Rogers. Attest : HORATIO ROGERS, Secretary, [William M. Singerly, specific and ad valorem duties.'] Philadelphia, July 24, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury , Washington , T). C. : Dear Sir : My answer to your inquiries is on the general subject rather than any specific information as to special branches of manufact- ure. The question of ad valorem or specific duties turns almost together upon the ability of the Government to collect ad valorem taxes. It is the fair * method of taxation and should only be abandoned when it is found impossible to guard against frauds and undervaluations. If the custom-houses are put into the hands of business men fitted for the discharge of their duties it is hardly to be doubted but that the taxes can be collected with satisfaction and justice. Nothing seems more arbitrary than a fixed duty upon an article sub- ject to constant changes in value. To my mind the first and all important step, to make a change in the tariff, should be the repeal of duties on the raw materials of manufact- ure. This country needs free wool, coal, ores, jute, hemp, lumber, salt, and dyestuffs. If this would increase the revenues, then duties on sugar and other necessaries can be decreased. Taxes on raw materials are inconsistent even with the theory of pro- tection. They shut us out from all markets when our own is glutted by overproduction. The element of cost, by reason of the tax on raw material, kills us. The taxes on the articles named are distinctly disadvantageous to the people of Philadelphia, Eastern Pennsylvnia, and adjacent States. The taxes on iron ore and coal operate as a means of perpetuating dis- criminations against this city in the freight charges by the railroads. The Government gets from these but a small revenue, but the exactions of the railroad companies amount to millions a year. 438 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The change from a protective to a straight revenue tariff must neces- sarily be slow. It should not be violent; our business people have been wheedled into investments through faulty legislation. The repeal of the taxes on raw materials would be welcomed by our manufacturers, and would be the beginning for future changes, which it would be un- wise to attempt at present. We are, I believe, the only Government in the world which handicaps her manufacturers, and calls it protection to American industry. I am, truly, yours, WILLIAM M. SINGERLY. [Columbus Delano, tariff legislation. ] » Washington, D. C., August 4, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : I infer from your circular of July 18, 1885, that your De- partment will recommend a revision of our~tariff laws at the next ses- sion of Congress with a view to “ the improvement of the customs-rev- enue system,” as expressed in the circular. I think it more than, prob- able that you contemplate important changes in our “ customs-revenue system ” besides those that are necessary to correct frauds which result from undervaluation. The interrogations asking information upon specified subjects con- tained in your circular seem to justify this conclusion. What these proposed changes will be, in substance or in detail, I do not know, and therefore I do not assume to conjecture. But notwithstanding this ig- norance, it seems to me that your circular clearly discloses enough to justify any one who is interested in the prosperity and welfare of our nation in saying what he deems worthy to be said on the important sub- ject to which his attention has been invited by the officer who admin- isters the financial department of this Government. I will therefore state some reasons which lead me to apprehend that more evil than good is likely to result from your circular. Instability in legislation affecting the business and industries of the people is injurious to the public welfare at all times. Since the tariff legislation of 1883 a cloud of uncertainty has been suspended over our heads, which has alarmed capital, paralyzed enterprise, and reduced the demand for labor ; and to this cause more than is generally sup- posed we are indebted for the present stagnation in all industrial pur- suits, for the non-employment of labor, and for the discontent and un- friendly combinations among workingmen which so seriously and fre- quently endanger the welfare of society. Overproduction has not weakened prices — reduced consumption has done this. How can the workingmen of the country be consumers when they are without employment, or in receipt of wages so small as to forbid their enjoyment of such physical comforts as our civilization demands ? The agitation of the tariff revision — so uncertain in its objects and aims as your circular leaves it — cannot fail, I think, to increase the em- barrassments of our business pursuits, both financial and industrial. If, however, it shall appear, when your purposes are fully and clearly made known, that you intend to change in order to “improve” our “cus- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 439 torus-revenue system,” the industries of the nation will at once inquire into the nature of these changes. Rumor now fills them with apprehension, by asserting that the vol- ume of revenue is to be reduced some forty millions of dollars — that pro- tection as a principle resting on a true economic policy, in financial leg- islation, will be denied, and that protection will be given to such indus- tries only as may be able to command the favor of Congress. The ruin to American industries which will follow such a policy when adopted is certain and unavoidable. It will also be swift. It may, indeed it must be, in part anticipated for reasons already stated. The errors which sustain this policy if it be proposed deserve a moment’s consideration. If the principle of protection to American industries by economic legislation cannot be sustained by sound argument it should be aban- doned as erroneous. If such protection can be sustained by reasons that ought to govern wise legislation, why should it be limited by the demand for revenue? Why not collect all revenue from internal sources and give no protec- tion ? Or at least, why attempt the protection of any industry by an ad- justment of customs duties for that purpose if it be not right and proper to foster and encourage all American industrial pursuits that can be profitably followed by our people. It would be monstrously absurd to say* we will collect revenue from customs duties in order to enable us by those duties to protect certain favored industries, but we deny the propriety of all economic legisla- tion that attempts protection for the sake of protection. If protection is not due to the labor and industrial pursuits of this country for the sake of encouraging such industries, and paying such labor fair and reasonable wages, then they deserve and should have no protection, either by direct legislation intended for that purpose, or in- cidentally by the futile, uncertain, and unequal results that will attend all efforts to adjust a tariff for revenue to the idea of incidental protec- tion. I apprehend that a tariff for revenue means free trade, as a final re- sult. It is proposed as an anodyne, to ease pain during the operation which is to cut off all our limbs and branches of industry, leaving us a helpless, naked trunk, unable to resist the assaults of cheap foreign labor and unlimited foreign capital. Mr. Secretary, I wish to invite your attention to one or two further considerations. An individual, a family, or a nation, that buys and consumes more than it produces becomes debtor to the extent of the dif- ference ; and by this principle you can safely measure our national prosperity. We have large and varied natural resources, an intelligent, industrious people capable of developing these resources, a laboring class that demands decent clothing, comfortable houses, and tables that have a fair supply of the necessaries of life. If you will, by wise eco- nomic legislation, secure to our people the control of the home markets for all products of industry which they can naturally and profitably supply, you will enable them to produce more than they purchase and consume, and as a nation we shall become a creditor and not a debtor. Our laboring classes will have employment, with homes, raiment, and food, such as our civilization demands, and prosperity will attend our progress. But if our markets are subjected to the competition on equal terms of the products of the cheap labor and abundant capital of foreign nations they will be monopolized by the people of other countries, and you will not see, I fear, such prosperity here as I am sure your patriotism 440 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. and love of country make you anxious to behold. Do not be deceived by the theory that giving to our producers the command of the home markets will increase prices to consumers, for all experience serves to demonstrate this truth, that domestic competition will reduce the price of all articles to the minimum cost at which they can be produced. In conclusion, I beg to remind you that a tariff for revenue does not mean protection, incidental or otherwise. It means this, if anything : that you assess duties to the extent the article will bear without embarrassing its importation, and thus, by open- ing our markets to foreigners and courting importations through re- duced rates of duty, the revenue is increased and room created for en- larging the free list, the principle of protection being denied. If it is expected that we may conciliate England by a policy which opens our markets to her products, and that she will then purchase more freely our breadstuff's or meats, nothing can be more fallacious. England buys nothing of us that she is not compelled to purchase. She never offered us free trade until her food necessities required it, and then only after two hundred years of a protective policy to her industries had enabled her with her cheap labor to successfully compete with the in- dustries of all nations. And pursuing this wise, self-reliant policy, she has nearly completed her plans for procuring her breadstuff's hereafter from the East, so that soon she will cease to purchase these largely from us. No nation understands better than England the necessity of preserv- ing a balance ot trade in its own favor; and none is more careful to prevent her importations, if possible, from exceeding her exports. Trusting that in all that you do, and in all that is done by the pres- ent administration, the welfare and best interests of the people of these States may be promoted, and assuring you that these observations are made with the single purpose of forwarding these objects and in no other spirit, 1 am, with respect, your obedient servant, G. DELANO. [Gibson, Parish & Co., specific duties.'] Chicago, September 7, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : We desire to acknowledge receipt of your communication bearing date of July 27 ; contents relative to the evils, and remedies therefor, of existing revenue system. In replj to inquiry contained therein, we will state that we are une- quivocally in favor of the adoption of specific duties. In this course we recognize the only available way to effectually defeat the deeply laid schemes of fraudulent importers now so prevalent and injurious under ad valorem laws now in existence. Eespecting desired schedule will say that we have been unable to give this portion of your communication sufficient attention and investi- gation to enable us to act in accordance with your suggestion. Very respectfully, GIBSON, PARISH & CO., Per R. H. PARKER. REVISION OF THE TARIFF 441 [Office of D. Black & Co., specific duties.'] Cleveland, Ohio, July 31, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Washington : Dear Sir : Replying to your favor of 23d instant, would say that we have been importing silks, satins, and silk plushes, and found that we were undersold by the agents, in New York, of European manufact- urers. We have no doubt that undervaluation has given them undue advantages. An ad valorem duty means a premium to foreign manufacturers as against American importers. A specific duty would virtually exclude the coarser grades, and the finer grades would be but lightly taxed, which, in our opinion, would be unjust to American manufacturers. A mixed duty would, in our opinion, be the best we can get, as our expe- rience in ready-made garments proves. In that article the undervalua- tion can be but small, and will not pay for the risk. Very truly, yours, D. BLACK & CO. [Meyer Brothers & Co., specific duties.] Saint Louis, Mo., August 3, 1185. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury Department , Washington , D. C. : Sir : We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter dated the 27th ultimo, in which you ask us for our opinion as to the best method of imposing duties, whether ad valorem or specific. In reply we beg to state that, in our opinion, specific duties are to be preferred to ad valorem duties, at least as far as articles we are familiar with are concerned. Very respectfully, your obedient servants, MEYER BROS. & CO. [The same.] Saint Louis, Mo., September 30, 1885. Sir: Referring to your favor of the 19th instant, we beg to state that our communication of the 3d August was prompted by the consid- eration that in our line of business purity and prime quality of nearly all articles imported are matters of the utmost importance; that the imposition of ad valorem duties on such goods places a temptation be- fore their manufacturers and dealers to adulterate or otherwise lower the standard of their preparations in order to lessen their dutiable value. A specific duty, on the contrary, would leave no such inducement, in- asmuch as it would give no advantage to manufacturers to send into the United States any but the purest articles. This reasoning, we be- lieve, will specially apply to all medicines, wines, brandies, and medi- cinal oils, such as cod-liver and olive oils. W e remain, very respectfully, MEYER BROS. & CO. 442 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [E. & S. Nordlinger, specific duties and damage allowances.'] Baltimore, August 14, 1885. Daniel Manning, Esq., Secretary of the Treasury of the United States , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: Your circular of 24th ultimo is at hand, and we have taken much interest in the tariff question you speak of. We are in favor of specific duty in any line of goods, as too much undervaluation exists by ad valorem rates. No undervaluation happens in the port of Balti- more, Vhere the steamers only bring small cargoes against New York, because the appraisers of the port are very careful, but in New York undervaluation happens every day. How is it that New York mer- chants come to this city, sell their goods cheaper than we can, where we are getting the goods from the same manufacturer and pay the same price, and we cannot compete I Because the undervaluation and the dam- age allowances can be better performed in New York than in any other port of this country. Our business has suffered very much through undervaluation and damage allowances, as we cannot get any allowances in Baltimore, while in New York City every importer is receiving often a nice percentage back, and we are very much in favor to remove dam- age allowance, as it does only hurt the trade. Further, we are in favor of specific duty iu order to make an end to undervaluation, by which only the dishonest importers succeed and the honest importers suffer. The complaint that the appraisers are to blame that goods come in undervalued, is not at all a just one, because the dishonest importers do it and not the appraisers. These New York houses have all made great fortunes by undervaluation and damage allowances, while we honest importers of Baltimore have hard work to compete against them and make an honest living, keeping always in front of us u honesty is the best policy.” We are importing several lines of merchandise, sometimes new styles of manufactured goods, and as soon as New York is getting hold of the article, it is selling its goods cheaper than we can, and are always very much surprised at their low prices ; we only think undervaluation is the cause of it, and we are very much in favor of specific duty, and also to remove damage allowances. * * * We remain, dear sir, very truly yours, E. & S. NOKDLINGEK. [Joseph Treloar, charitable donations of wearing apparel.] Custom-House, New York City, Collector's Office , November 19, 1885. My Dear Sir: Pardon me for bringing to your attention a feature which strikes me as harsh in the operation of the tariff. The present u free list ” exempts from duty the u wearing apparel in actual use * * * of persons arriving in the United States ”$ and under the Department’s rulings the exemption applies when the apparel precedes or follows the arrival of the owner within a reasonable time. Cases of great hardship are constaytly x>resented to this office. For in- stance, where families from abroad have gone iuto our “ great West,” the husband and father has died, leaving a widow and small children $ friends abroad send them old clothing, and the law, as it is, imposes REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 443 duties thereon at the same rates per pound, if wool, as is chargeable on new clothing! I have faith that there is not a law-maker in Congress who will not favor the exemption from duty of such charitable donations under proper restrictions. I append hereto a copy of a provision in this relation contained in Mr. Hewitt’s bill, which was presented, but not passed, last session: Provided, That charitable donations of wearing apparel shall be exempt from duty- on production of evidence satisfactory to the collector and to the naval officer (if any) that the same are in good faith imported for the relief or aid of indigent or needy persons who are residents of the United States, and not for sale; but this exemption shall apply only when such donated wearing apparel is old and worn, and the value thereof in any one importation does not, in the judgment of the United States ap- praiser, exceed $100. I am, with high respect, your obedient servant, JOSEPH TBELOAR, Chief Cleric of the Customs . Hon. D. Manning, Secretary of the Treasury. [Wm. D. Marvel, tariff legislation.'] Ho. 70 William Street, New York , August 5, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury Department , Washington , D. C.: Dear Sir: In replying to your circular letter of the 22d July, 1885, addressed to me, asking my attention to the following-named points, viz : (1) the feasibility of simplifying the tariff; (2) making duties spec- ific, &c.; (3) suggestions towards the removal of incongruities; (4) schedule-rates of specific duty, &c., and (5) information as to what ex- tent, and with respect to what classes of merchandise I have suffered injury on account of evasions of the tariff [lawj, and how, in my judg- ment, such evasions may be prevented, I will take up each item under its head in order * # * : SIMPLIFYING THE TARIFF. By reference to the Constitution, Article I, section 2, paragraph 3, it may be seen that “ Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor- tioned among the several States, which may be included within this ITniou,” &c. This is mandatory, absolutely — there is no option or “if” about it— and I contend that Congress has no power under Article I, section 8, paragraph 1, unless the mandatory provision in the Constitution before quoted shall have first been complied with as to direct taxes. “ Direct taxes shall be apportioned,” and, in the powers given to Congress, power is given “ to lay and collect taxes,” and it is implied in the further powers given to Congress that, if direct taxes shall be insufficient by reason of any exigency, war, famine, or similar calamity, then Congress shall have the power to lay and collect “ duties, im- posts, and excises,” and such power is merely granted to provide for an emergency beyond the ordinary affairs of the Government. This, then, is my first suggestion toward the matter of simplification. 444 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. And I apprehend that those old patriots who sought to found the best government the world ever saw, sought to lay the foundation upon the principles of checks and safeguards. They had studied, observed, and suffered under the wrongs from arbitrary laws of other nations. They sought to put a check upon improper representation, and at the same time a check upon the profligacy of Eepresentatives in expenditure of public money, which must be taken from the people by taxation. The very point upon which the colonies arose in arms was upon the matter of “ taxation without representation.” The Constitution was intended to make representation and taxation co-equal and upon the basis of the census actually to be taken from time to time every ten years, after three years. We have the representatives, but we have not the direct taxes, but we are taking from the people by the most unjust indirection, annually, in round figures, $400,000,000 ; or, say, on the basis of the last census, $8 per capita of the whole population of the country, or nearly $24 per capita of every man, woman, and child in the country who earns wages in any capacity whatever in the production or distribution of values. This refers alone to the National Government, but we must consider that the burdens of taxation upon labor are further increased by an al- most equal amount for the support of State and local governments, be- sides enormous funded debts to be liquidated from the fruits of labor. But to return to the direct point under discussion. * Suppose, for instance, any of the great schemes and rings which have disgraced our public records for the past twenty-four years, in which our public lands have been squandered, our public money voted away upon subsidies, navy jobs, back pay grabs, river and harbor steal bills, &c. Were the money thus squandered by the Representatives (which we have) paid into the Treasury by direct taxes (which we have not) where would you find the Representative that would dare to vote for such measures in the affirmative ? Aye, would any Representative ever have the opportunity to vote at all upon such measures ; for, I do not be- lieve any Representative would ever dare to introduce such measures in Congress at all; if he did, and returned to face his constituents, every one of them having to pay an extra percentage of taxes, he would be apt to find demonstrations the reverse of courtesy and compliments con- signing him to dishonorable privacy. The true principles of democracy have been subverted, and in the records of our Government for the past twenty-four years we find one continuous procession of oligarchical government robbing the people of every right except to pay taxes. The oligarchy have appropriated the public domain to private uses and squandered the public moneys, taken from the people by every dia- bolical method of indirection in numberless schemes of plunder from the Treasury for their private gains. They have polluted the temples of jus- tice and openly boasted that the blind goddess is a purchasable strumpet to satisfy their lusts and passions for iniquity. Had the mandate of the Constitution been heeded as regards direct taxes such things would have been impossible, because no man would have dared to have taken the first step which has led to such things. Those old patriots built their Constitution in wisdom, actuated by motives born in hearts honest and true, breathing in every word and in every act the spirit of justice and liberty, and declared that the price of such was eternal vigilance. We have permitted one lapse and another, one encroachment and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 445 another, one outrage and another to follow from time to time until we have but in name what was founded in fact, the land of liberty. I suggest that we should, at least, provide for all those expenditures of Government which may be necessary to maintain, in the dignity of democratic government, the civil, judiciary, diplomatic, interior-civil, military, and naval affairs of the nation from direct taxes, and the same to be levied and collected and paid in accord with the requirements of the Constitution. That being done then the way is open for the, therefrom easy, matter of simplifying the tariff* laws and making such practically specific upon a basis of low ad valorem equivalents. MAKING- DUTIES SPECIFIC. It is not without the bounds of possibility to make all duties specific, though they may be assessed ad valorem. The plan, however, is open to one grave criticism, and is not consistent with the institution of a free country. I refer to the method of assessing ad valorem duties, making them specific by proclamation of values upon which the ad valorem duties must be paid from time to time. There are many considerations both for and against this method ; and unless the line of dutiable ar- ticles of merchandise is to be very much curtailed in the number duti- able, the detail to specify the grades and brands in proclamations would be out of all possibility. In principle it is in many respects desirable, but in practice, under a general tariff law, taxing everything as we do, it will be found almost impossible to adopt it. Then again is the con- sideration of opportunity, by official corruption and early knowledge of proclamations for the advancement or reduction of values, for rings to be formed to operate to the detriment of the people as a class, whether importers, wholesale merchants, jobbers, dealers, or private consumers. This system, though apparently fair on the surface, might be so used as to subvert the principles upon which taxes are levied — for support of the Government — and result in a wholesale system of robbery of the people under the guise of law. It would open the opportunity and be the inducement for combina- tions of officials, with men of large capital, to organize great trading companies, who would always import under proclamations of low values and prepare for carrying stocks of goods to supply wants through a period of high values. It may be argued that everybody will have the same chance under values high or low, but it cannot be said that every- body will have the same information as to when a new proclamation of values is to be made; and whatever may be the safeguards of legisla- tion around any system of tariff upon imports which levies a high rate of duty, they will be fruitless to prevent frauds, which the very system itself is the breeder of and for which itself offers the inducement in the form of a premium for perjury, fraud, and official corruption, in protect- ing and participating in the fruits of frauds, whether the duty be high ad valorem or high specific. * * * A plan has been proposed for the partial forfeiture of goods to the Government under the ad valorem system, whereby if values are ad- vanced by the appraiser 10 per cent, the importer may be paid the amount of his invoice plus the advance added Upvalue. This plan is open to many very serious objections. It is not only a very complicated plan, opening the way for frauds in the payment of deposits for duty, and the refunds of money on liquidations, and the payment of freight and charges on goods, but it is a premium for col- 446 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. lusions between officials and importers to sell to the Government all sorts of worthless and damaged goods, and also makes it possible for collusion to get valuable goods through, arranged to deceive by bad samples, when offered by the Government for sale duty free. I believe that in the great lines of manufactured goods which the wisdom of Congress shall deem to be properly dutiable, the only way to insure uniformity in the collection of the duly laid is to lay such duties under very careful classification to begin with, make the rate of duty low, not to exceed 25 per cent, under any circumstances. Then establish a daily report of values between appraisers at the different ports of entry upon the merchandise passed’ upon, and compel samples of all goods (subject to ad valorem duty) to be kept in, say, triplicate, samples to be returned to the importer in some proper time at Government expense. Make it the duty of the appraisers, or theijr assistants, in their depart- ments wheee assistant appraisers are employed, to compare the daily reports of values at other ports, and to at once report to the collector of the port any discrepancy w T hich may occur in values of goods imported at any port, as compared with values at that port. Make it the duty of the collector at each port, personally or by a deputy, to constitute a board of investigation to ascertain proper values, and upon such ascertained proper values all entries of the same goods shall be liquidated at all the different ports. The collectors (or one of each of their deputies) of any three or more ports might be made a board of investigation, but all collectors should be notified of such in- vestigation, and the subject. Any collector finding a discrepancy in values at his own port com- pared with values at any other port or ports should be compelled to notify at once the collector or collectors of such other port or x>orts, and arrange immediately for an investigation within ten days. Entries of goods subject to ad valorem duties should be open and unliquidated for four weeks at least. A central board should be established under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury, to whom should be sent one of the samples before suggested, and it should be the duty of that board to examine the samples and compare the same and their entered values (which should also be transmitted therewith), and if any dis- crepancy be found to notify the collectors of such ports as the dis- crepancies may occur between that- they shall immediately, if they have not already done so, proceed to investigate and harmonize dif- ferences upon a basis of true and correct values. I am aware of the detail and clerical labor involved in this system, but I am also aware that the constitution is mandatory (after granting- power to the Congress to levy duties, imposts, and excises) after a “ but,” viz : u But all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” and if there is any other way of meeting that requirement than by some system of communication and inform- ation between the collectors and other officials charged with the re- sponsibility of collecting, I am unable to suggest it. I would do away with all consular invoices, so-called, as they are of no value to the importer, are not recognized by the Government as of any value to it. Under the present law it is possible, and has actually occurred, that consular invoices for the same goods shipped to different parties may b.e certified to and sworn to under the prescribed form, one declaring a value of, say, $1 the unit, and another $2.50 the unit, and still another $2 the unit, on the same day. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 447 This might occur in fluctuating markets by purchases being made in a few days. In 1880 I paid duty on 24s., f. o. b., value for iron ore, and I think in some cases as high as 28s., but my invoice was for only 10s. to 12s., f. o. b., in England. Afterwards I might pay duty on 16s. or 18s. value when prices had declined to 12s. to 13s. again. That law is a very unjust one, and, in my opinion unconstitutional ; certainly at variance with the provision that “duties shall be uniform,” &c. A neighbor of mine may buy silks, for instance, at $1.50 per yard; he is compelled to have his consular invoice at $1.50, and the law compels him to pay duty on $1.50. I wait a week or two, and I buy a line of the same goods at $1 per yard. His invoice comes along at $1.50, mine at $1 ; our goods are in the same steamer, perhaps, and we enter them for duty the same day ; he has to swear his goods in (according to “ law ”) at $1.50, and has to pay, according to law (60 per cent.), 90 cents duty ; total, $2.40. I have to swear my goods in (according to law) at $1, and have to pay, according to “law” "(60 per cent.), 60 cents duty; total, $1.60. I thus get the advantage of my neighbor 50 cents per yard by “ purchase,” and 30 cents per yard by “law.” And here one of the inconsistencies and incongruities of the law may be mentioned. One way, the law says that the value must be that of the market price on the day of shipment. The consular invoice says that that is the only invoice, and that the value is the true market value, which, as mentioned above, may be $1.50, because that party did buy at $1.50, and, as exampled above, my in- voice, sworn to with all the solemnity as the other, certifies quite as sol- emnly to $1. The whole system at present is one mass of inconsistencies and incon- gruities, making nothing of the solemnity of an oath encouraging eva- sions and frauds, and altogether a premium upon rascality and for col- lusions between dishonest importers and dishonest officials. SUGGESTIONS TOWARDS THE REMOVAL OF INCONGRUITIES. I have already suggested the abolishment of consular invoices and have mentioned the only means that I know of for correcting the matter of incongruous values. I may now mention the matter of classification and nomenclature. Articles should be classified in accordance with the customs of trade and commerce, and under such classifications the nomenclature used should be such as applies to articles of commerce, and the appellation given should be such as is applied in the affairs of human life. The tariff law should specify by distinct classification in the different general lines of imports the goods, for instance, “ manufactures of silk,” which may come under any one classification. The nomenclature used to define dutiable articles should always be in accordance with commercial usage and known denominations of trade. Beyond these specific classifications and specific nomenclations make all things free of duty, and leave no such opportunity open for “ Treasury Department decisions” as is displayed in the numerous volumes of decisions accumulated under the present system during the last twenty years particularly. You may there find all sorts of decisions, some of them so very silly 448 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. that one might wonder if the customs department of the Treasury were not an asylum for incurable idiots, or a resort for rogues to practice all manner of schemes of rascality for defrauding the revenue and injuring honest merchants. In the great run of the so-called Treasury decisions it will appear, under a critical examination, that commercial usage, law, Supreme Court decisions, and common sense, upon which all law is supposed to be founded, have all been unheeded or set at defiance. Scientific nomenclature must be ignored entirely, as may be seen by reference to 8 Peters, page 279, where the Hon. Judge Thompson says: “ The denomination of merchandise subject to the payment of duties is to be understood in a commercial sense, although it may not be scien- tifically correct. How t just this is on the face of it may be apparent from the fact that in the growth of science new classifications are constantly being made, new substances are being discovered, and other substances finding new uses. In chemistry the foundation of the present classification and nomenclature of substances is that of the French Academy of Sciences in the eighteenth century. True it is an advance upon the old animal, vegetable, and mineral basis, but it is very far short of a rational sys- tem meeting the present state of science. At times it has been proposed to call a general congress of scientists from all nations to meet and there reform the whole system to conform to the modern classification and nomenclature of substances. The Hon. Judge Story, 9 Wheaton, page 438, &c., says : The object of the duty laws is to raise revenue, and for this purpose to class sub- stances according to the general usage and known denominations of trade. Whether a particular article were designated by one name or another in the country of its origin, or whether it were a simple or mixed substance, was of no importance in the view of the legislation. It did not suppose our merchants to be naturalists or geolo- gists, or botanists. It applied its attention to the description of articles as they de- rived their appellations in our own markets, in our domestic as well as our foreign traffic. And it would have been as dangerons as useless to attempt any other classi- fication than that derived from the actual business of human life. * * * The true inquiry, therefore is, whether in a commercial sense the [article] in question is known, and bought, and sold, and used under the denomination of — Say tea, sugar, silk, iron, steel, hemp, jute, minerals, ores, chemicals, or anything else. The Hon. Judge Ingersoll, 3 Blatehford, page 393, says : In ascertaining the meaning of terms used in the tariff acts as suck relate to com- merce, recourse is had to their meaning according to the commercial understanding of the terms in our markets at the time the acts were passed ; and where it does not ap- pear from the act itself that some other certain fixed meaning is intended by the terms used, then they are to be understood according to the commercial meaning of the terms in our markets at the time the act was passed. These decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and many more which I might cite, have been utterly ignored in Treasury De- partment decisions. In this point of specific classifications and specific (commercial) no- menclature in the tariff law I come to consider another point which is unconstitutional and, in my opinion, without warrant. Congress makes the law, and then the commercial public is left to the mercy of senseless, incompetent, to say the least, Department employes to construe the law. They override the plainest and most apparent in- tent of Congress in the law, and subject the citizen (merchant), to an endless annoyance and expense to maintain his rights through the courts. The system opens the way for all manner of frauds, through official REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 449 favoritism, by corrupt collusions between dishonest importers and dis- honest officials, and it has been openly charged that heads of Bureaus have had their brokers outside dealing in Departmental decisions and information. The opportunity for such tilings arises solely and purely out of the inconsistencies and incongruities in the classification and nomenclature used in the tariff acts, and the power given to, or assumed by, Treasury Department officials to construe the meaning of terms used in the acts. And this in late years has led to one of the many tendencies towards centralization of all powers in detail in Washington. Collectors of ports for many years have been powerless to perform their duties, as the laws intended collectors to do. And it is a matter for congratulation that under the present administration one of its first acts was to give Judge Robertson to understand that he was the collector of the port of New York. Heretofore under the law the collector of a port was the one responsi- ble head for the collection of the revenue at his port, but under the assumption of power in Washington, claiming the jurisdiction over the smallest detail, the collector was only nominally the collector. He was powerless to act untrammeled for the proper collection of the revenue, or for the proper protection against frauds, or lor the proper prosecu- tion of frauds. Special agents have been established almost supreme over the col- lector, hindering and preventing, actually, the collector from the per- formance of his duties. * * * I apprehend that the original intent was that the special agents should be useful aids to the Secretary^ of the Treasury in his necessary business relations with the collectors of ports, and that they were to per- form special duties which the Secretary of the Treasury could safely dele- gate to such agents, and which it would be physically impossible to do personally himself. This original intent has been, by one encroachment and another, en- tirely subverted. * * * This system of investigation and report and pigeon-holing indisput- able evidences of frauds has been practiced, I believe, to the end of, and for the sole purpose of, nursing such things in oblivion until outlawed under that iniquitous three-year limitation law, when the dishonest im- porter and the dishonest official confreres may snap their fingers in the faces of honest men and dance around the temples of justice jingling their ill gotten gains in well filled pockets. Repeal that law at once; make a fraud never outlawed. SCHEDULE, ETC. Under this head I will try to be very brief. Raw materials (free of duty ). — I use the term raw material in its strict commercial significance, which applies to any substance which is the fundamental raw material upon which labor is employed in any line of manufacture, viz: Iron ore in iron manufacture, copper ore in copper manufacture, raw wool in woolen manufacture, raw silk in silk manufacture, raw hides in leather manufacture, raw hemp in hemp and linen manufacture, raw jute in all that line of manufacture, and all other (fundamental) raw ma- terials. I submit, as an indisputable fact, that any tax upon the raw* materials is a direct tax upon labor, and just to the amount of such tax precludes S. Ex. 72 29 450 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. the possibility of wages to labor. Such tax is contrary to public policy, a hindrance to the conservation of the public interests, and a disturber of the general welfare. In view of the existing evils, the result of twenty-four years of mis- rule, and the enormous misdirection of capital under the system so long fostered, I would enact : All lines of manufactured goods to be dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem basis, and make no discrimination in favor of or for the protection of any. With the raw material free of duty and 25 per cent, on manufactures, the manufacturing industries will have all the “ protection ” that the people can alford to pay for, and I believe that in time, under such a policy, we may regain a position among the commercial nations of the world which we can never do if we pursue the present policy The present policy had its birth, at least the first germ originated, in the necessities for taxation of imports to defray the expenses and costs of the wars waged by the colonies in their struggles for freedom. Prejudice and animosity toward the mother country was largely in- fiuential in making it possible to inaugurate what became to be known as the “ American system,” and by what insidious means, by what paleous arguments, by what sophistical pleas the idea of “ protection 99 was instilled into the minds of the people may be seen by any one who will study the legislation of those days. Alexander Hamilton, the so-called founder of the “ American system,” would be denounced as a “ free trader 99 in these days. As the result of all his great influence, his great report upon manu- factures, the “ protection,” in form of a protective tariff, was 7£ per centum ad valorem on all manufactures of cotton and wool ; but even Hamilton never committed the folly of enacting a duty on raw mate- rials. He says : Indeed all tlie duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in contemplation (i. e., “ protection ”), and except where they (duties) fall on raw materials, wear a beneficent aspect toward the manufact- tures of the country. Hamilton recommended, however, for some reason or another, a duty on hemp, apparently to encourage the cultivation of hemp iu the United States ; but as an example of his inconsistency, and, as I think, proof that his recommendation for duty on hemp was prompted by other motives, perhaps personal interest, he had an entirely different view as to cotton, for he says : The present duty of 3 cents per pound on the foreign raw material is undoubtedly a very serious impediment to the progress of those manufactories. * * * A repeal of the present duty on cotton is indispensable. And in relation to iron he even questioned “ if it were not expedient to import pig iron and bar-iron free of duty.” This “American system” for the protection of “infant industries” grew (take, for instance, cotton sheetings) from Hamilton’s ideas of protection, from 7£ per cent, ad valorem duty in 1790, 12£ per cent. 1794, 15 per cent. 1804, 27 £ per cent. 1812, 114 per cent. 1810, 125 per cent. 1824, 145 per cent. 1828. Here the “America system 99 culminated in almost the disruption of the Union, and a compromise was made in Congress leading back to a comparatively common-sense system of tariff duties, and .by successive reductions a rate of 20 per cent, was reached in 1842. From that time (1842) down to the war of the rebellion we had com- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 451 paratively low duties, and the prosperity of the country was such as it never saw before. Our goods were known in every market of the world, our ships car- ried the American flag, over cargoes of American goods, to every port in theworld. American merchants had their establishments in foreign countries. In the last eight years of Democratic administration, 1853-1860, in- clusive, under Fierce and Buchanan, was the most prosperous period of our country’s history. Under the Democratic policy of low taxes, which is the means of af- fording real prosperity and especially to the laboring classes, the pro- ducers of wealth, we find that the wealth of the country increased from $6,000,000,000 in 1852 to over $12,000,000,600 in 1860, or say 100 per cent, in eight years. Then came the war, which I will not discuss here as to its origin, though I have not the slightest objection to doing so. Had we gone on increasing our national wealth from 1860 to 1880 as we did from 1852 to 1860 we should have found our wealth in 1880 recorded at $72,000,000,000, but we only find (census report 1880, page 1508) the total real and personal wealth of all the States and Territories to be $16,902,000,000. The war revived the so-called “American system,” “protecting” every- thing, aud theoretically it will appear that under such system our wealth was actually prevented in growth to the extent of our $55,000,000,000. Deduct from the $16,902,000,000 the depreciation in all sorts of values since 1880 of over $4,000,000,000, and we are carried back to practically the figures of 1860. Thus, under twenty-four years of misrule, we are apparently worth no more now than we were in 1860. But this is not all; in 1860 we did not know what debts and taxes were, comparatively speaking, whereas now not only do we find our national wealth really at the same figures that were shown in 1860, but we find enormous debts to be liquidated out or the fruits of the soil and labor, amounting in the aggregate to over $7,200,000,000, and we find taxes to the General Government, State and local Governments, and to specially privileged classes under protective tariffs amounting in the total to $2,915,000,000 annually. We are thus in this position with about 17,000,000 people in all ca- pacities of employment in the production and distribution ot wealth, each one mortgaged for $414, aud, besides, each one subject to an-an- nual incubus of taxation of $163. Is it any wonder, to those who will carefully investigate our condition, that we are in a very bad way ? We find ourselves now, after squand- ering the fruit of the soil and product of labor for twenty four years, in a condition of commercial, financial, industrial, and moral stagnation. To those who study such things it is well known that the moral con- dition of the people depends largely upon a wise and pure system in the administration of the Government. We find out of all this that the physical and social condition of the people has degenerated. From 1860 to 1880 our population increased from 31,000,000 to about 50,000,060, an increase of say 61 per cent., but when we look at the rec- ords of insanity, idiocy, blindness, and dumbness, we find those ills have increased by an average of 300 per cent. Aud further, looking into the matter of illiteracy, notwithstanding all the partisan pretenses of the parrot orators, champions of the party of 452 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. great moral conscrvers, boasting of our churches and school Louses, we find that illiteracy has increased 245 per cent. What must we do ? We have already changed the administration and the administration is to be sympathized with from and for the enormity of its work to be performed, to be obliged to administer bad laws, the accumulative in- iquities of twenty-four years, and to exert its influence upon legislation to reform the whole system. It has been said that “The object of Government as generally prac- ticed is to wrest from producers their earnings, in order that others may be relieved from the inconvenience of producing for themselves.” That seems to be quite applicable to our past twenty-four years of Govern- ment. . We must now come back to the principles upon which this Govern- ment was founded. We must do away with every useless tax, and every tax is indisputably a burden upon the laboring classes. We must place our manufacturing industries in the position to secure raw materials upon which labor is employed free from any form of taxation. We must rise to the advance of the science of the subdivision of labor, and de- mand of our statesmen and public men their devotion to the principles of that science in reforming and correcting the iniquities of the past. We must do away with all special class legislation and all sumptuary laws, and permit our natural resources to develop under the natural course of production and distribution whereby our lost vantage may be regained and our national wealth augmented in a permutation, propor- tionate to our numercial increase of population. Then again shall we see the commerce of the world paying tribute to our wealth, demanding the products of our skill and energy, afford- ing employment to our now idle hands. Then again may our commercial and naval marine command the seas and the admiration, respect, and even the fear of other nations as it did a quarter of a century ago, when, to be an American, under the American flag, was the sure passport to the utmost corners of the world, where none dared to disturb or molest. The range of the inquiries in your letter of the 22d July, 1885, is so great that I can but briefly touch upon them, and even then at the risk of making my reply so long as to be, with all your multitude of duties, beyond your personal attention. The subjects are interesting to me, and I would be pleased if any word of mine could be instru- mental in leading to the reforms so much needed, and in case my pres- ent communication shall be found to need any explanation or in case I may be of service to you in aiding you by pointing out authorities in the prosecution of your desired aim, I am at your service to call upon, and I will respond within my poor ability to do so. Every government recorded in history that has pursued the course which we have been pursuing the past twenty-four years has gone down from a position among commercial nations. One by one have they risen to the zenith of their fame and glory until an oligarchical power has as- sumed to defy the will and deny the rights of the people, and from that point decline has been more or less sure, step by step, until they have been numbered among the “ conquerors that were.” Information as to what extent and with respect to what classes of merchandise I have suffered injury on account of evasions of the tariff (law), and how, in my judg- ment, such evasions may be prevented. I have suffered great injury from the dishonest importations of iron ore during the years of 1880, 1881, 1882. * * * REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 453 As the duty on iron ore is now specific, at 75 cents per ton under the new tariff law in operation since July 1, 1883, the same opportunities do not exist, but I have sometimes thought that there may be some cheating in weights, though of this I have no real proof. * * * * The remedies that I would suggest for preventing such frauds as my experience in ores makes me cognizant of are only to be made follow- ing upon a thorough simplification of the tariff and by “ kicking the rascals out.” You cannot build any house of reform so long as you keep any of the old timber in, and the sooner the rotten timber is thrown out the better. Then you must have a tariff* law framed upon the basis of a low rate oi* duties, removing, as far as possible, all duties which are in themselves a premium upon fraud and for evasion of duties. One of the very worst features of our present tariff law is that it is an advertisement to all the world that a big premium is offered for foreign adventurers to come here and evade the duties and make a big pile of money, and you will find that most of the importing business is in the hands of men of that class, not citizens of the United States. Look at the silk business and similar trades — scarcely an American citizen. They think it is fair game, we offering the premium, to go in for it. And meantime honest American merchants are driven out of the busi- ness. ####*## I must, however, impose upon your attention some items for your con- sideration which are contemporary questions to be considered in con- nection with tariff reform. A heavy tax on merchants who are not citizens of the United States and extraordinarily stringent rules upon all entries of imports made by such merchants. I am fully aware of the arguments pro and con this question. A heavy tax on all imported persons in proportion to their occupa- tion. The law at present really provides for this under the head of “Ani- mals, live.” “The term ‘live animals’ comprehends all living bodies endowed with sensation and the power of motion.” (See foot-note, Heyl’s ed. 1879, p. 112.) The laborers of this country are open to the freest sort of free trade in all that they have to dispose of — their daily labor, their bone, sinew, life-blood. The present system is leading to a system ultimately worse than any slavery or serfdom recorded in the annals of nations. The law is enforced to “protect” the laboring horse, mule, and ox. The law excepts “leeches” from tax or duty, and this seems to have a double significance for the laboring man, who is left to the mercy of “leeches” imported and “leeches” indigenous to the soil. The manufacturer — the employer of labor — the purchaser of bone, sinew, and life-blood — has his interests most carefully conserved in the spirit of the famous Garfield-Morey letter. Thus while the laborers have the price of their commodity (labor) made by the utmost freedom of trade, free importation, they see every article of consumption protected and prices therefor made accordingly. This question should be considered to the point of a just conclusion before the injustices now experienced, and w r hich are beginning to agi- tate the minds of the leaders of the labor organizations, shall have led to serious consequences. By the census of 1880 it may be proven that in the “protected” in- 454 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. dustries, for every $2.19 of value created or made by labor upon the raw materials upon which labor was employed, that labor was only paid $1. It must be apparent that the laborer who sells his daily labor for $1, and buys back (as one of the consumers) the fruits of his own labor at $2.19, is destined to a very hard life. I am not unmindful of the due allowances to be made, in an exact computation, for capital, interest, wear and tear, but I merely present the exact condition as it is. The result, however, is only in conformity with our whole iniquitous system. It seeks to create value by legislation, forgetting that any- thing which destroys the honest parity between values and purchasing power is destructive of the interests of the w T hole people ; and it is that, and that alone, which puts us so intermittently into short feasts (booms) and long famines (periods of j>rotracted prostration), and it is by this, and this alone, that our national resources have been and are being squandered. We tax the raw materials upon which labor is employed. Free raw material is the very foundation upon which all manufactur- ing nations build their success. The tax upon raw material is very strikingly illustrated in the woolen and iron industries. In iron we find that in 1870 the miners employed in iron-ore mines averaged to produce 2 26 tons of iron ore, and their wages amounted to $2.01 per ton. In 1880 they averaged to produce 223 tons, and their wages amounted to $1.35 per ton, or a reduction of 33 per cent. On July 1, 1883, the new duty of 75 cents per ton on iron ore came into effect, and to-day men are begging for work at 60 to 65 cents per day (within 100 miles of this city) and no work in mining iron ore to be had. In Virginia 40 cents per day is the rate, and in Tennessee convicts are contracted out at 30 cents per day in iron mines. All these “protective” tariffs are pretended to be “for the benefit of the poor workingmen.” Will any man in this world stand up and show me where there is any benefit to the poor workingmen? In the mean time pig-iron and spiegeleisen are being imported in large quantities, which, if the raw material were free of duty, would make demand and use for large quantities of native ores, employing labor to mine it, to mix with foreign ores, and again employ labor to quarry limestone, mine coal, and make the pig-iron. The matter of iron ore and the effect of a duty upon it is very for- cibly expressed in the following letter by the Hon. A. S. Hewitt, who is, to my personal knowledge, the owner of iron-ore property in seven or eight different States in this Union: New York, December 30, 1881. Dear Sir : I have received copies of the petition which the citizens of Morris County are requested to sign in favor of an increase of duty on iron ore. The petition is based upon a total misconception of the facts of the case. If the miners regard their own interests they will petition for an entire abolition of the duty on iron ore, because every ton of foreign ore that is brought here enables a ton of our ore to be used which would otherwise find no market. The reason of this is that all the ore in Morris County contains a little more phosphorus than is possible to be used iu the manufacture of steel. The foreign ores imported are practically free from phosphorus. By mixing the two in equal proportions a pig-iron can bo produced which is fit for the Bessemer converter. Hence the more foreign ores we can get the more Americau ore will be used, and the better price we shall be able to get for it, and the higher wages we shall be able to pay to the miners. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 455 I shall therefore do all in my power, although my firm is the largest miner of iron ore in New Jersey, to secure the total abolition of the duty and not its increase. You are at liberty to communicate my views to your neighbors and to the public in any way that you see fit. Truly yours, ABRAM S. HEWITT. In pig-iron manufacture the laborers see a protective tariff of $6.72 per ton for their “benefit.” It was argued that there must be $6.72 protection on pig-iron be- cause the rate of wages is 50 per cent, higher here than in Europe, and that $6.72 would not more than cover the difference. Now, let us see this problem under the test of mathematics. If $6.72 is 50 per cent., then the wages paid for making iron in Europe must be $15.44; and if the protection of $6.72 is for the benefit of American workingmen, then the wages for making pig-iron in this country must be $13.44 plus $6.72, or $20.16. What are the facts'? I will defy any pig-iron maker in the United States to show that for making pig-iron the wages paid to the laborers amount to over $1.50, and, in fact, the average is not over $1.35, and perhaps uot over $1.25. So much for that. Now, what of coal 0 ? We have 75 cents per ton protective tariff on bituminous coal, also “for the protection of the poor workingmen.” The whole wages paid to miners (by the ton) now , for mining bituminous coal will not average 50 cents per ton. Thus “the benefit to the poor workingman” is that he gets actually 25 cents per ton less than the entire amount of the protective tariff, enacted ostensibly for his benefit. And in the mean time enormous Eastern manufacturing interests are prevented from supplies of fuel from Nova Scotia because of 75 cents duty. This very item of 75 cents per ton on fuel to many of the large cotton and other manufactories of the East makes the difference of ability to pay wages and manufacture goods for foreign markets. It is, in fact, by actual computation the equal of a manufacturing profit to English mills. Out of the muddle that we are in we must afford the greatest scope for the employment of labor, and remove every tax that precludes the employment of labor. I have recommended one uniform duty of 25 per cent, upon all manu- factures without favor or variation. In view of the condition of things consequent upon the errors of the past; I believe that the millions upon millions of misdirected capital may be thus saved from loss to the nation, as a part of the national wealth, if all raw material is made free of duty, and every impediment in the way of our manufactures being able to make commercial com- petition in the markets of the world is removed. The true principle of taxation is to tax upon gains, and not to tax so as to prevent industry and the consequent gains. Our present system tends to make common wreck of everything, and but for the beneficence of Divine Providence affording us the fruits of the soil, which have been poured out with lavish profusion and from and by which alone our foreign indebtedness has been balanced, and it is a matter of easy speculation what would have become of this nation but for that. Upon the agricultural interests have fallen the burden, and they alone saved us from national bankruptcy, and that, too, while having the value of their produce fixed in the free-trade markets of the world, taking their proceeds through the exchanges, and having their purchasing 456 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. power here reduced by 50 to 100 per cent, by protective tariffs upon every article of their consumption in domestic use. How long will that great interest submit to this system of wholesale plunder for the benefit of interests specially favored by legislation! We had best consider the rights of labor, the rights of agricultural interests, before it is too late, before the present agitation assumes the form of discontent, and that leading on to anarchy. I contend that there is no other way out of our present difficulties, and though my words are but the expressions of the opinion of one ot the multitude, I warn all of my fellow-citizens that the failure to return to the simple principles of justice and right towards all classes is only to extend and perpetuate endless troubles. In connection with the question of reform are the matters of our ancient navigation laws and the very serious problem as to how to solve the matter of inter-State commerce, especially as regards trans- portation and the rights of commercial travelers, all having more or less bearing upon and relation to the subject and involving rights vouchsafed under the Constitution. APPROPRIATIONS. I would suggest for your very serious consideration, in making esti- mates upon revenues and expenditures, that the revenues from partic- ular sources shall be designed for special purposes and shall be so stated in the annual budget. Perhaps it would be well to provide for all surplus to be appropriated to the reduction of the public debt. I would reduce as much as possible the opportunity for all sorts of schemes for disposing of any unappropriated money. I would, however, consider the condition of our Navy and our forti- fications as worthy of some attention specifically; but I would make all calls for taxes for revenue to be appropriated for specific purposes. I would make the legislation for the one retroactive upon the other, i. e. f revenue upon expenditure. Though not immediately under the line of your special inquiries, I must meution the matter of commercial treaties, which should be made, or reformed where we now have such, to conform to the usages of the age, affording reciprocal protection for persons and their property, and providing for ministers and consuls, at the request of owners of property in foreign countries, to be obliged to protect the property of American citizens, by some code to be formulated whereby our minis- ters and the Secretary of State of the country to which they are sent shall adjudicate such matters, and we in return shall grant a reciprocal favor. This is an important matter, and should receive the immediate at- tention of our Government. Out of commercial relations and transactions, and by the interna- tional intermarriage of subjects of different countries, properties be- come, and may become, subject to trespass and depredations from various reasons of absence of the owner from personal direction and control. Various circumstances may arise making it impossible for an agent to be intrusted with the powers to do, or the ability to do, without the long delays of courts of law, what might be done with facility in the manner which I suggest, and entirely with justice. Such, too, is entirely, I think, within the proper sphere of the Govern- ment, in protecting the citizen and his property, and, f oo, in a manner expeditious and just. There are many other things which I might suggest bearing upon the commercial interests, which I will not urge at this time. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 457 What I have suggested, I have done so out of my firm convictions from personal experience, as being to the end that from such sugges- tions you may give them such weight in your general plan of reform as may result in actuality. Respectfully, WM. D. MARVEL. [Peter Wright & Sons, tariff legislation .] Philadelphia, October 31, 3885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir : In reply to your letter of September 24, asking us for a full expression of our views upon the manner of handling the tariff question, as well as upon customs administration, we would respectfully submit the following : TARIFF. Unless a reasonable certainty exists in the minds of those competent to judge that the various opinions upon the tariff' held by members of Congress who are favorable to some reform can be reconciled and united upon a concerted line of action, with fair prospect of accomplishing leg- islation, we would strongly deprecate any attempt at a general revision, believing that, however unjust the present tariff law may be, and how- ever crude and ambiguous in many of its details, it is better for the general interests of the country to hold to it with a few changes, the propriety of which must be acknowledged by all fair-minded men, what- ever may be their views upon the principles underlying the tariff, than to disturb the business of the country by a long contest in Congress against a powerful, well-informed, and united body of men, knowing just what they want and just how to take advantages of the divisions among their opponents, ending as the contest did last winter, and as such contests between a united and divided party must always end. Should a general revision of the tariff not be deemed possible or ad- visable for the reasons we have stated ; or for other reasons, and the attempt be made merely to correct a few of the more glaring defects of the present law, we would call attention (1) to those provisions of the law relating to undervaluation, &c. These, we think, should be so amended that the merchants shall enjoy credit for good faith unless positive proof exists to the contrary ; but in such a case let the law pro- vide prompt and severe punishment, consisting not only of heavy pe- cuniary penalties, but also of absolute disqualification for business. That foreign manufacturers shall not have one price to sell and another price at which to consign to their agents in this country $ (2) that for- eign manufacturers shall not be permitted by consigning their entire production to themselves in this country to make a fictitious value for their product, for dutiable purposes, without regard to what would be considered a fair market value if sold at place of production $ (3)' we would recommend that the duty on certain lines of merchandise neces- sary to the masses of our people, abnormally increased by act of March 4, 1883, be reduced to a level with the duty on kindred lines. On the other hand, if a general revision of the tariff is deemed possi- ble and advisable, we would offer the following suggestions : The separation of all dutiable articles into two classes — necessaries and luxuries. Necessaries. — We would subdivide into raw and manufactured, and 458 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. by raw we mean a product of nature not changed by the intervention of either skilled labor or machinery. These we would admit free. Partially and wholly manufactured, 25 per cent, to 35 per cent, ad valorem, substituting an equivalent specific duty whenever possible without discriminating unjustly, grading the rate so that taking into account the geographical protection, cost of packages, packing, &c., inland freight, shippiug charges, ocean freight, marine insurance, loss of interest, breakage, damage, or deterioration usually incurred before landing, the gross protection to our home manufacturers would average about 50 per cent, of the foreign cost. Geographical protection . — We regard the geographical protection en- joyed by our home manufacturers as a very important factor in arriving at the proper rate of duty, for while it is only a small percentage on ar- ticles of great value and small bulk, it is a very large percentage on many articles of prime necessity of small value as compared with bulk, and whatever may be the percentage, it is easily ascertained, and has the great merit of reasonable stability, being affected neither by legis- lation nor undervaluation of invoices. Luxuries . — We would assess at as high a rate of duty, either ad valo- rem or specific, as experience shows could be collected without encour- aging fraud. Older nations than ours long ago demonstrated the fact that there is a point where smuggling and undervaluation not only become possible, but comparative^ 7 easy, and more unfortunately still where the community becomes callous to such offenses, and juries re- fuse to convict. We consider both coffee and tea, now on the free list, as proper ar- ticles for taxation under the head of luxuries. We believe a tariff based on such a scheme as we have outlined, prop- erly digested, and the details arranged by competent experts, would be beneficial to the whole country. CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION. Naval officer . — We would recommend the doing away of this office, uot only because it is a useless one, coming down to us from the time of Charles II, but because by a system of checks between estimating clerks and appraiser the rate of duty assessable, as well as the amount, can be more easily and satisfactorily ascertained. Surveyor . — We would recommend the doing away of this office and turning its duties over to a deputy collector, thereby bringing them more directly under control of the collector. We believe the above recommendations are in the line of efficiency and economy in the service. Very respectfully, PETER WRIGHT & SONS. [J. A. Pilling, tariff legislation.'] December 1, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury , Washington: Sir: I see from the public prints that you have addressed a circular letter to the manufacturers and importers of the country asking for information upon matters pertaining to the tariff, with a view to the reconstruction and simplification of import duties. Now, inasmuch as a high tariff is a direct benefit and advantage, in REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 459 fact a subsidy, to the manufacturer, enabling him to realize immense profits from his business, and a low tariff would act in the opposite direction, it is unreasonable to expect that the manufacturers will sup- ply information of an impartial and disinterested character. They cannot be parties to the killing of the goose that lays the golden egg. Therefore, any information derived from such a source must, and no doubt will, by the present Government, be received with caution and reservation. The Government is pledged to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests, and it is a very difficult task to perform. The object in view should be to reduce the tariff’ upon foreign manufactures in such a degree that no injustice may be done to existing home industries, to enhance as far as practicable, haviug regard to the interests of all, the purchasing power of the dollar; to take care that as little injury as possible is done to the wage-earning classes ; to haye consideration and regard for the necessities of the poor, and see to it that the luxuries of the rich bear their fair share of the burden of taxatiou; to hold the balance fairly and squarely between the producer and consumer, that the former may not be excessive in his demands and the latter willing to pay fair remuneration for value received. To dovetail these conflicting elements js a mighty work, but one which the Government, I have no doubt, will bring to a successful issue. I have given much study to this subject, and venture to advance, for your consideration, the following points : The first argument of the up- holders of high tariff or protection is that low tariff would bring ruina- tion upon the manufacturing interests of this country by flooding the country with the cheaper productions of foreign countries and by thus stopping the demand for the higher- priced home-made articles, the sup- ply would of necessity cease and the mills would, as a natural sequence, shut up, and thus thousands of mill-operatives would be thrown out of work. In reply to this argument, the protectionist would have you believe that foreign manufacturers are producing at less cost every class of article that is made in this country. The fact is in fifteen branches of trade the American is to-day producing goods as cheap as and of equal quality to any foreign-made article in these fifteen branches, some of which rank as great industries in these United States. Therefore, let it be remembered .that even a total repeal of all import duties on these classes of goods would do little or no injury to these fifteen various branches. They are as follows, with the amount of duty derived from each for the year ending June 30, 1883 : Flour milling and breadstuff's $3, 779, 705 Brewers, beer, ale, &c 511, 382 Wood and its manufactures 1, 703, 096 Carriages and parts thereof 48, 348 Agricultural implements (included in wood and other items) Clocks and watches 784,443 Leather and its manufactures (boots and shoes) 3, 770, 547 Books and other printed matter 771, 508 Provisions 407, 462 Paper 645, 691 Fish 357,978 Animals (alive) 806, 164 Coal 515, 097 Musical instruments 445, 893 Total 14,546,314 460 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. These $14,000,000 might be taken off the tariff without injury to home industries and with great advantage and saving to those who are now consuming these imported articles. Of these 15 branches we export as follows, showing that we are suc- cessfully competing against the world : Bread and breadstulfs Beer, ale, and porter Wood and its manufactures Carriages, &c Agricultural implements Clocks and watches Leather and its manufactures . . Books and other printed matter Provisions Paper Fish ; Animals (alive) : Coal Musical instrumen ts $208, 040, 850 490, 442 26, 793, 708 3, 508, 405 3, 883, 919 1, 479, 731 7,923,662 1,018, 138 107, 388, 287 1,589,908 6, 276, 375 10, 789, 268 4,241,247 1,203,612 It is obvious that these branches of industry need no protection. Branch 2. — Articles not produced in this country , thus rendering protection unnecessary. Tin, duty derived ! $5, 075, 052 Fruits, nuts, &c., duty derived 4,603,455 Spices, duty derived 873,885 Seeds, duty deri ved 314, 228 Trees and shrubs, duty derived 27,128 Cement, duty derived 160,458 Cocoa and cork, duty derived 33, 656 11, 087, 862 Branch 3. — Articles manufactured in this country only to a small extent. Silk, duty derived $19, 654, 946 Flax, duty derived 7,584,342 Hemp, duty derived 2, 615, 392 Chemicals, drugs, medicines 6,053,574 35,908,234 Branch 4. — Articles manufactured largely and which would he adversely affected by a too great reduction of tariff. Woolen goods, duty derived (68 per cent.) $32, 320, 892 Cotton goods, duty derived 12, 234, 371 Iron and steel, duty derived (40 per cent.) 16,590,503 Glass goods, duty derived (55 per cent.) 4, 182,616 Earthenware and china (43 per cent.) 3,746,488 69, 074, 870 Branch 5. — Luxuries. Diamonds, paintings, statuary, furs, tobacco, &c., might either re- main as at present, or, if the demands of revenue require, it might, with the exception of tobacco, be advanced. Deductions to be made : It is obvious that if branch 1, consisting of 15 trades, is now able to manufacture goods equal to and as cheaply as any or all foreign manu- facturers, it is able to compete with them successfully at home, when by our exports it is clearly shown that a successful competition is being Revision of the tariff. 461 Carried on in their own foreign markets. Therefore, these 15 trades need no protection, and fourteen millions can be spared from the reve- nue to the great advantage of the consumer. Branch 2. — These goods not being produced in this country, there is no home industry to protect, and in the interest of the consumer this eleven millions might be taken off, without injury to the traders in these goods. Branch 3. — These trades cannot be counted amongst the great indus- tries of this country, and yet the people are taxed thirty-live millions annually for their protection; the interests of the small number of man- ufacturers even must be guarded, but when it is considered that they are so few in comparison with the vast body of consumers, it is unfair that the great majority should be thus heavily taxed for the benefit of this small minority. A considerable reduction in this branch might be instituted. Branch 4. — Are these trades able to compete with the foreign manu- facturers of like goods'? If they are they need no protection; if they are unable, then they require, and it is politic to grant them, protection. The question is how much protection is needed that the manufacturer may keep up his position and no injustice be done the consumer who is again in the majority. Without a doubt 68 per cent, in woolens is too high; there is no reason that I know of why the American cannot compete with the foreigner, except possibly the question of wages, there- fore handicap the manufacturer, that he may meet this additional wage, and he should be satisfied. The same applies to the iron, cotton, glass, and earthenware trades. My judgment is, that if the duties in branch 4 were reduced one-half these trades would be favorably handicapped. The revenue under the last administration was in excess of the ex- penditure $100,000,000 or thereabouts. The Democratic party charged their opponents (and truthfully, too) that they had drawn from the pockets of the people this vast sum without any necessity. It thus be- comes the duty of the party with which you, sir, are associated, to bring about such a reform as will put an end to this state of things. Now my suggestions would lead to a saving of — Brancli 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 $14, 546, 314 11,087,862 35, 908, 234 34, 537, 434 Total 96,079, 844 I am, sir, vour obedient servant, F. A. PILLING, Owing’s Mills , Baltimore County , Maryland. [J. H. Tribbey, tariff legislation.'] Secor, III., November 16, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Dear Sir: In answer to your circular of inquiry respecting the tariff question, let me say that I hold that any tariff legislation that will re- quire the masses of our people to pay a bounty to a favored few of our American citizens is wrong and should be abolished. Furthermore, I hold it is in open violation of the Constitution of the United States 462 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. and detrimental to the general welfare of our people, for any law en- acted by Congress that will effect a prohibition of foreign commerce to this country will surely prohibit the surplus exports of this country to such foreign state. Therefore Congress should take immediate steps to repeal all laws, or modify the same to that extent that there should be no more revenue collected than will pay its reasonable portion of the general expenses of the United States Government. I hold any other revenue collected is oppressive to the great masses, for the rev- enue placed upon foreign goods so high that it will protect home man- ufactures to the detriment of consumers is wholly wrong and should be abolished. Protectionists tell us of the great things that the tariff has done for America, as though it was the tariff that produced from six to seven hundred million bushels of corn per annum, or as if the illimit- able forests and pine timbers in Michigan were all due to the tariff. Let us see how this is. Our neighbors of South and Central America and the West Indies, whose total foreign trade exceeds $1,141,223,440 per annum ; we do not sell them but 12£ per cent, of the food and American manufactures. This being the case with South and Central America and the West Indies, is it not true with all other foreign States that would gladly purchase of us our surplus products ? Is it not natural for men to trade with men whom they consider their friends and not their enemies. Therefore, legislation should be of that charac- ter that would court a friendship with all nations. Let me ask you why it was that a Senator got on the rampage when Germany placed an embargo upon American pork. If Congress could with impunity place a high protective tariff upon wine, so high that Germany could not ship her surplus wine to this country, is it anything strange that Germany should retaliate by placing an embargo upon American pork? It seems as though the Senator was of the opinion that Germany must submit to our prohibitory legislation and bow down, and take that which we may have to sell free and without restraint whatever. iSow, I have called your attention to a few facts, let me urge, upon you my views upon the question of the tariff. jSTo tinkering should be tolerated for a moment, but wipe it off our statutes, abolish the system, and get rid of that multitude of officers that is required to make the assess- ments and collections of revenue tax, and run our Government upon the same basis that we run our State governments. The same assessors and collectors that assess our town, county, and state tax can just as well collect a direct tax for the General Government, and save the ex- pense of a multiplicity of officers under the present system. Congress should immediately take into consideration and enact such laws that will enable Americans to buy where they can buy cheapest sea-going vessels, that our commercial fleet may be trebled and respected upon the high seas, and compete with other nations to foreign shores, of which under our present system we lose in place of receiving any benefit. With the repeal of our protective tariff laws we can build a commercial fleet that will compete with any nation of the world, and not only be a saving to us, but will be an honor to this great Repub- lic of which we boast. We have the executive and ther legislative branches of the Government, except the Senate, which may thwart legis- lation in this direction, but if so, we have yet a remedy left, and that is, if the Senate fails to concur with the House of Representatives in the repeal of the protective tariff laws now upon our statutes, let there be a test case and bring it before the Supreme Court and test the con- stitutionality of our protective tariff laws that will forever settle this class legislation; as I feel and know that we have legal talent all-suf- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 463 ficient that will be more than ready and willing to present and protect the rights of all American citizens in their just constitutional rights. As you will notice, I deferred closing this article on account of the free traders’ convention in Chicago. Having received a full report of which, I presume you have been thoroughly notified, which gives a very thorough meaning of what I consider to the best interest of all Amer- ican citizens. There is another great reason why the present protective tariff system should be abolished. The President of the United States, before he can take his seat, shall solemnly swear or affirm that he will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, any law enacted by Congress in viola- tion to the Constitution of the United States is asking the President of the United States to enforce a law in opposition to that which he has sworn to protect and defend. Sir, permit me to be your most obedient servant, &c. J. H. TRIBBEY. [West Point Foundry, tariff legislation.] New York, December 5, 1885. The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Washington , D. C. : Sir : According to notices in the daily papers there are to be at least one or two bills introduced in the House for the purpose of changing the tariff. As you have called for the opinions of manufacturers on the subject in order to present their general views, we would respectfully offer the suggestion that before any agitation of the tariff question com- mences a law should be passed that any new act shall not go into effect for either two or three years from the date of its enactment. Bad as the tariff may be in some respects, constant agitation of the subject is much worse for all business interests, and has a most depress- ing effect upon our manufactures. If, however, there is a certainty that there will be no change for, say two years, there will be an opportunity to arrange contracts and pre- pare gradually for any effect of a new law. We think it would greatly benefit all business if some assurance of this kind can be given by Congress. Very respectfully, your obedient servants, West Point Foundry Association. By C. J. NOURSE, Jr., President. [Ostheimer Brothers, tariff revision and administration .] Philadelphia, November 20, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , W ashington, D. G.: Sir: Tn reply to your letter of July 24 we take the liberty of call- ing your attention to a few practical suggestions we have to make, and trust they will be of service to you. There is no doubt whatever but that every honest importer in the United States is strongly in favor of the adoption of specific duties, as it is universally conceded that by this 464 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. means only can the duties be honestly and justly collected. Almost every civilized nation has adopted a specific tariff, and every business man will say that the uncertainty, injustice, and arbitrariness of an ad valorem tariff make specific duties almost an absolute necessity. Knowing, however, how varied the opinions are, and how difficult it will be to transform our present system of tariff into a specific one, we propose the following method as the most practicable, and sincerely trust it will meet with favor in the eyes of the law makers. The merchant of the present day, as a rule, is a man of considerable education, and fully capable of battling with difficult and knotty ques- tions in matters where his interests are at stake ; much more so than the majority of lawyers who are called upon in Congress to determine and decide points in whhh they have never had any practical experience. We would therefore suggest that the collectors of the following ports each appoint 25 reputable merchants, to be selected from importers and manufacturers in the various lines, whose duties shall be to meet in con- vention at New York at a certain stated time, organize as a convention to discuss the practicability of changing the present ad valorem tariff into a specific one, and make a report to you to be submitted to Congress at the earliest possible moment. It might be well to request the collector of each port to consult with the president of the Chamber of Commerce in each city, and to obtain from that gentleman some information as to the names to be selected. The committee of 200, or 25 from each city, to come from the following ports of entry : New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Saint Louis, New Orleans, San Francisco. In order to facilitate the object of the convention, we would suggest that skilled experts be called in to propose the simplest methods of arriving at a satisfactory solution, and that the Government place the various heads of the customs service at the disposal of such conven- tion — in short, that no pains or expense be spared to attain the ob- ject for which the convention has been called together. The greatest difficulty which all honest and legitimate importers have had to fight against is competition with manufacturers abroad, who have their own houses or agents here, and who refuse to sell to any one except to themselves, thus making the question of market value an almost impossible one for the examiner and appraiser to determine. This exists in almost every line of goods, and while we have no doubt that in most cases these manufacturers try to get at the correct mar- ket value, the temptation is certainly very great to defraud the Gov- ernment, and the dishonest merchants take advantage of it. An importer who buys all his goods abroad has no difficulty to fix the market value, as this is certainly the price which he really pays, for, according to our idea, the market value of an article is the price at which the maker would sell such article to each and every buyer. This we feel convinced was what was meant when the law was made, that the duties must be levied on the market value of the article. But a manufacturer who only sells goods to himself makes his own market values according to the prices he paid for his raw material, for cash or on credit, according to the wages he has to pay, and to a variety of circumstances, all affecting the mode and process of manu- facture. Various manufacturers in the same line have different ideas as to what the market values should be, and thus much difficulty is natur- ally encountered by the examiner, and many reappraisements made necessary. We would suggest that a law be passed in case specific duties are not found to be possible, making it compulsory that a profit of at least 10 per cent, be added to the cost of all goods sent to the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 465 United States by manufacturers to their agents, and that in case it is found on reappraisement that such 10 per cent, has not been added to each and every item on the invoice, a penalty of 25 per cent, on the entire invoice be imposed. We would also suggest that some change be made in the present method of reappraisements, as we are con- vinced that many unjust decisions are rendered under the existing laws. At present the examiner who, with the advice and consent of the ap- praiser, raises the invoice because he thinks tbe goods are undervalued, is a Government employ^, and does so because he believes it to be his duty. A reappraisement is demanded by the importer, and the general appraiser becomes the guardian of the interests of the Government, and his convictions being also honest are also naturally favorable to the Government. The collector, also a representative of the Government, chooses a reputable merchant, usually a competitor of the importer in question, who, together with the general appraiser, settle the question of market value. We think it would be very much fairer to have the collector appoint five reputable merchants, who, with the general ap- praiser, are to hear the evidence of both sides from the importer and from the Government employes, and then render a decision, as it very often happens that the merchant appraiser appointed is very much prej- udiced against the importer charged with undervaluation, and his de- cision cannot possibly be a just one. It might even be well for the Sec- retary of the Treasury to appoint at every port of entry a reappraise- ment committee selected from the chamber of commerce of such port of entry, and such reappraisement committee to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the collector of the port. Sincerely hoping that our suggestions may be of some service, we beg to place our services at your disposal should they be needed, and have the honor to be, Yours, most respectfully, OSTHEIMER BROTHERS, [Robert S. Griffin, duties based on cost of labor ] Worcester, Mass., September 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning: Dear Sir : Could not a practical tariff on imported manufactures and products be substituted for the present one, based on the labor cost of manufacturing or producing them in this country? To explain: The tariff on an article in which the labor cost was 10 p r cent, say of its market value would be subject to one-fifth the amount that another would in which the labor cost was 50 per cent, of its value. This would be equivalent to raw materials free and a uniform tariff* on the labor which had been added to them at the time of im- portation. It could be fixed at any per cent, (of the whole labor cost) necessary to yield the desired amount of revenue, and if at any time a larger or smaller amount was desirable, add to or take off a uniform per cent. Would not this be fair and equitable to every industry and furnish all the legitimate protection possible, and just to labor and the home market? Respectfully, yours, S. Ex. 72 ■ " ■ - 30 ROBERT S. GRIFFIN. 466 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The same. ] Worcester, Mass., November 13, 1885. Allow me to add that the object is to obtain a reveuue from importa- tions by a tariff system having an impartial basis, one that would be comparatively what civil service principles are to the public offices, in- stead of leaving it to the influence of the many conflicting interests that are brought to bear upon Congress at every change that is agitated or made. It would protect the workman and producer by taxing the work of their foreign competitors when imported, the manufacturers in the home market to the same extent, and practically furnish them raw ma- terials free. This would assist them to compete in the markets of the world, and a larger amount of work would naturally lead to better pay and increased prosperity for all. Respectfully yours, ROBERT S. GRIFFIN. [Charles B. Curtis, works of art.'] New York, November 14, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: I have not received your circular issued with the view of ob- taining suggestions as to modifications of the tariff, and perhaps I do not belong to any of the classes to which it is addressed. I have, however, given some thought to two branches of the subject of your inquiries, and I venture to present my views thereon. I refer to duties on works of art, and on books. As chairman of the committee on art of the Union League Club, and by authority of the club, I recently sent a circular to every artist, teacher, and institution of art in the United States, whose address could be obtained, asking for an expression of opinion as to the policy it was desired the Government should pursue in levying duties on works of art. 1 have in my possession replies in the form of petitions signed by one thousand four hundred and thirty-five individuals and societies. It will be noted that no inquiries were addressed to dealers or amateurs or to the general public — but only to artists and artistic societies and institutions. The result is most surprising and is as follows. There were of these favorable to — The present duty of 30 per cent 7 Foraner duty of 10 per cent . 28 A specific duty 34 Divided, i. e., some art objects dutiable and others free 21 For abolition of all duty 1, 345 Total 1,435 It will be seen that more than 93 per cent, of the petitioners are in favor of free art , and less than one-lialf of one per cent, are favorable to the present law. This most extraordinary result shows a degree of unanimity that could hardly be expected in auy other subjects of human inquiry. I think the opinions of these persons, who are specially interested in the sub- ject, are entitled to the most respectful consideration. The original petitions with signatures attached are in my possession, and they will in due time be presented to Congress. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 467 You are doubtless aware that before the outbreak of the recent war works of art were admitted to our ports free. The necessities of the Government, in the opinion of Congress, justified at that time the im- position of a moderate duty, and the rate established in 1861 was the lowest that was levied on any dutiable article imported into the coun- try, viz, 10 per cent. This law remained in force for twenty-two years without serious objection, although it was not satisfactory to our ar- tists, who from time to time petitioned for relief. When the change came it was like a thunderbolt from a cloudless sky. In place of the bread they asked for 1»hey got a stone ; instead of removing the duties a,s the artists desired, Congress increased it threefold, making the rate higher than is imposed by any nation on earth. But what was more extraordinary than the law itself is the way it was brought about. The press did not advocate, nor did the people demand it. The tariff commission, although charged with strong sympathy with protection, did not recommend a change. The records of Congress fail to show that any memorial or petition for increased duties was ever presented by any artist, or any individual, or any society. No bill to that effect had ever been considered or even introduced. No legislator ever pro- posed or advocated the passage of such a law. The rules of legislation require that a bill shall pass through certain forms before it can become a law. It must be introduced by a member, referred to a committee, re ported, read three times on different days, and finally receive, an affirm- ative vote of both houses of Congress. Not one of these requirements was ever met, except, in a confused way, the last. The history is, briefly, this: The Senate and House disagreed as to some of the details of a tariff* bill pending at the close of the session. Committees of conference were appointed, which not only adjusted the differences between the houses, but they inserted in the bill entirely new matter, relating to a subject that had never been before Congress in any form. Two or three lines were inserted in the bill, and in the confusion that attended the closing hours of the session they escaped observation and became the law of the land on the 3d day of March, 1883. Not to make my letter prolix I will condense my argument into a few brief propositions. (1) The present duty cannot be excused on the plea of necessity. The Treasury is overflowing, and the problem is how, without injury to existing interests, to arrest the progress of congestion. (2) There is no obligation on the part of Government to protect a class that strongly protests that it does not need assistance and is injured by it. (3) When so many interests are clamoring for protection, and this one is crying out against it, Congress is fortunate in being able to sat- isfy both sides and at the same time aid the public. By removing the duties on ivories of art we may retain them on such manufactures as call for help. (4) As a revenue measure the present law is a complete failure. In the last year of the old tariff the duties paid on paintings and statuary at 10 per cent, were $307,886.74. In the first year of the new tariff the duties at 30 per cent, amounted to only $101,362.11. Increasing the rate threefold resulted in diminishing the revenue about 40 per cent. This decrease cannot be to any great extent attributed to a general depression of trade, since the total imports into the country declined only 7 per cent., while such luxuries as fancy articles, jewelry, and pre- 468 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cious stones showed an actual increase. (Treasury Report 1884, pp. 481-3.) (5) We have not by this policy benefited American artists, for their sales by their own account, and as officially stated by the managers of public societies and exhibitions, have decreased. (6) We have injured American artists by curtailing foreign demand for their works. The exports of paintings by American artists are offi- cially shown to have declined from $387,857 in 1883, to $170,389 in 1884. (7) We have incurred the ill-will of foreign nations who have strongly remonstrated against our present law. (8) Ours is almost the only country in the world that imposes a duty on works of art. France, Italy, Russia, Germany, &c., are protective nations, but they levy no tribute on the productions of genius. These objects are also free in Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Can- ada, and in every other enlightened nation. The countries in which they are taxed are as follows: Mexico, 57 cents each, and 40 cents per pound ; Guatemala and Venezula, about 12 cents per pound; Colombia, 22 cents per pound; Chili, $2.40 per square foot; Spain, 20 cents per each pict- ure; Servia, 8 per cent. The United States extorts 30 jper cent. In this respect our policy is so completely at variauce with that of the rest of the world that we can justify ourselves only by showing that all other nations are wanting in sense and that here only is true wisdom to be found. There are numerous suggestions I might make having reference to the educational, civilizing, and enlightening influences these objects exert, but I will not trespass on your time by repeating arguments that must naturally occur to every cultivated mind. As to the duties on books, I respectfully submit that our present law is worthy only of a barbarous people. Au examination of Senate doc- ument 1884, report 551, shows that every country in the world admits foreign books free, except only those in the following meager and not very creditable list : Spain and Mexico levy about 1 cent per pound ; Guatemala, 10 per cent.; the United States , Toper cent. It seems the height of inconsistency to spend millions of dollars for public schools and to raise a few thousands by taxing the means of education. Cer- tainly there can be no justification in erecting barriers against foreign books not reprinted in this country. These, at least, may and should be made free. One needful measure of reform lies in the power of the Secretary of the Treasury without the action of Congress. I refer to the duties on “books by mail.* On the 3d of April last I addressed to the Hon. Mr. Fairchild, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, a communication on this subject, to which communication 1 beg to refer. 1 showed that during the last calendar year there were received by foreign mail at the New York post-office 60,225 packages estimated to contain 120,000 books. The entire amount of duties collected was just $10,497.15, being an average of only 17 cents per package, or 8J cents per volume. I estimated aud endeavored to show that the salaries of officers, sta- tionery, postage, and other expenses exceeded the entire revenue from this source, and that t' e receivers of these packages, 60,000 in number, had been subjected to inconvenience and annoyance, not only without profit but at an absolute loss to the Treasury. Formerly no duties were imposed ou such importations unless the article exceeded $1 in value, but in 1881 an order of the Treasury De- partment directed that the tax should be collected on every book by mail, however insignificant it might be. To undertake the gathering REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 469 in of revenue in such paltry sums is too trivial a business for a great nation to engage in. And it is difficult to conceive of any tax that can cause so great annoyance to so many persons with such slender results. This collection of these pennies may be an advantage to a bare half- dozen foreign importers of books, but ten thousand citizens are made to sutter where one is benefited by the tax. In the interest of education this thing should be reformed. I have the honor to be, very respectfully yours, CHARLES B. CURTIS. [Draft of a bill to make works of art, &c., free of duty-1 Be it enacted, at once opened, and he says, Why that is more than what I paid for the stuff when I bought it. But he has it to pay. There is no getting out of it unless he can bribe the customs officer; but farmers have so little to do with these persons that he knows nothing about it. It takes million- aires engaged in woolen manufacturing (and I will not say that some of the mem- bers of the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers would do it), who can take a hand *n importing wool said to cost less than 12 cents per pound on the other side and get it in at low duty of 2| cents, when at the same time it is well known to the individuals, as well as to the customs officers, that if the laws are faithfully executed and the invoices truthfully sworn it would have had to pay a duty of 5 cents per pound. Honesty cannot compete with such operations. A man may be engaged in running a mill making men’s worsted wear, and may stop all his looms and buy worsted goods in England, and bring them into our ports in the grease and gray to be finished and dyed in an American mill. The customs officers are not supposed to know the value of such goods, and they are brought in at far below their true value. This foundation rock of prosperity has a great tendency to make our people dishonest, to swear falsely, and to tempt them to bribe our sworn and faithful customs officers. Of course no one who is an advocate for preserving this foundation rock of prosperity would be guilty Of doing anything to cheat the Government by not paying the proper duties ? It is only the farmer who has just found 474 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. out bow badly be bas been swindled that would undertake to do such things. Tbe interests tbat are fostered and raised on this foundation rock of prosperity system are simply bot-bed plants, and when such financial frosts as have been experienced in tbe times referred to, from 1873 to 1877 and from 1883 to 1885, strike them, it freezes some beyond recovery, and others take much nursing to bring them around. As we have been operating under tbe protective system for the last twenty years, it would not do to make any sudden or radical changes ; yet we can by a judicious and wise enactment come to it by a slight and gradual reduction of duties without creating any sudden revulsion in any department of trade, and when we get down to that point where we could supply our own people as cheaply as they could buy in any other market of the world, then if we got our own market overstocked we could send to any market of the world a portion of our surplus and relieve our own market. Why is it that we are not able to supply our Mexican neighbors with woolen goods just as cheap as England or any other country ? Why, the pamphlet has told you in as clear and plain language as it is possible to find, we have to buy our wool at 40 cents per clean pound over and above what any other country has to pay. Under such circum- stances how can we compete in any market but our own when the Government forces the consumers of woolen goods to pay two prices for them ? While we are exporting cotton goods by the tens of millions of dollars’ worth annually our woolen goods ex- ported are counted by a few hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum. I have oft- en thought the matter over about this combined action taken by large monied in- terests to get Congressional action taken in favor of some special interest ; it always looked to me to be all wrong. What do we elect Senators and Representatives for? My idea was that we selected them for their several positions for the reason that they had made a study of the duties they were about to assume. If we have exercised the rights of treemen rightly, and sent the right men to represent us, why is it necessary to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each session of Congress to keep a paid lobby to operate on our Representatives ? It has often been a question that I was not fully able to satisfy myself upon, whether the enlightenment that our Congressmen receive from lobbyists was received through the brain or the pocket ? I may be accused of following out the principle laid down in the pamphlet, that manufact- urers ought to be the best judges of their own interests. I have said nothing about the 35 per cent, ad valorem duty on woolen goods, which, if it were just before a Presidential election would be sung from one end of the country to the other that it was for the benefit of the American workingman, because they are an important factor about those times. But at the present time it is for the protection of the man- ufacturer against the cheap pauper labor of Europe, and to enable them to pay tbe present high wages of this country. Now, all the wages paid in this country at this time in the manufacture of woolen goods selling at $1.50 per yard will not amount to over 30 cents per yard, or 20 per cent. ; now this is the entire proportion of cost of labor to make goods selling for the above price. I question very much if it will not cover the cost of labor in the highest paid mill in the country. I have given my in- dividual opinion that free trade was for the best interests of all the people of our country, and for that reason I am satisfied to let Congress, who are elected to act for the best interests of the country, do what seems to them best without the influence of a paid lobby to bring any undue influence to bear on our representatives. It is the busiuess of Congress to regulate all such matters in their own way. I shall ac- commodate myself to the situation, let it be what it may. In the year 1881 there was manufactured in this country 1,100,000 tons of steel rails, and there was imported about 100,000 tons more, and all was sold at an average price of $61 per ton, and at that time there was a duty of more per ton than what American steel rails have been contracted to be sold for since that time. The railroads built that year in this coun- try paid forty millions of dollars more than what they would have had to pay for them had it not been for the then high rate of duty paid. The railroad companies who bought the high-priced rails will try to make their patrons pay the interest on that amount as long as they possibly can, and our farmers who carry their grain and other products thousands of miles to an Atlantic seaport will get that much less for their products. All the high rates of duties tend to make high prices for our home-manufactured products, which are protected, and cause the farmer to be placed at a disadvantage in every instance. The protected industries go into the labor market and select the best, and that puts up the price of labor on the farmers. Now, if manufacturers cannot make a living without putting their hands in other people’s pockets and taking that which they have no just right to, only the right obtained through Congress by some pressure brought to bear upon them by interested parties, just as the National Association of Woolen Manu- facturers are proposing now to do by the issuing their circular and pamphlet, then they are paupers and should be kept in the almshouse. The leading men of the two great parties of our country, at their late national conventions, both expressed them- selves upon the subject of the tariff, and the expression of both lead to a reduced rate of duties. Now, what has influenced these conventions to thus express themselves? Only that public opinion is forcing them to thus act. -‘tTlie Democratic party, through REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 475 its convention which nominated Grover Cleveland for the Presidency, declared that the Democratic party is pledged to revise the tariff,” “ and the Republican party, through its convention which nominated the Hon. James G. Blaine for President, de- clared that the Republican party pledges itself to correct the inequalities of the tariff and to reduce the surplus.” Now, when the leading statesmen of our country and of both political parties can thus so nearly agree upon a measure as they have doue on the tariff question as above quoted, it is hardly worth while for the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers to set themselves up against such public sentiment so fully expressed, unless they think they can raise a purse sufficient to buy a sufficient num- ber of members of Congress and Senators to do what they, the woolen manufact- urers, want done. It strikes me that the American people are beginning to think, and whenever the mass of them do think, then all such unjust enactments as our present tariff laws will be wiped off our statute books. A single instance that has come to my notice showing that the workingmen are beginning to think. Let me quote a letter which I received to-day from a person that I do not know that I ever saw: a Wilmington, Del., November 23, 1885. “ Hon. William Dean, Newark, Del.: “ Dear Sir : You will pardon my intrusion when you understand my mission. At one time I loudly tooted the tariff horn ; latterly I have begun to think it’s not what it is preached to be, and desiring enlightment, I would ask if I could have an audience with you. Saturday and Sunday being my only leisure time, I being one of those blessedly protected fellows, an ‘Iron Roller,’ and the workingman of all others should be informed, as he suffers more than others in result of bad laws * * * having heard you make a speech at one time, I felt that you were a man free and open and easily approached. “Yours, respectfully, &c. When workingmen begin like this one, the contagion spreads. * * * * Your pamphlet, speaking of the tariff revision of 1883, says, on page 5, “that legislation was not the pledge of a party, but of the nation. It was a treaty with the national industries, and, like a treaty with a foreign power, should be respected even by those who do not approve it.” Now, I did suppose that the men who composed the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers certainly knew the difference between an act of Congress and a treaty. There is no act of Congress that is passed but what can be repealed either by itself or a succeeding Congress. The passage of the tariff of 1883 was not a unanimous act of the two houses of Congress, and the men who opposed it then, no doubt, are still of the same opinion they were at that time. There is noth- ing done by the Congress of 1883 that is binding on the Congress of 1885 and 1886, and public sentiment has undergone a great change on the tariff question since that time, or else the expression given out by the two great political parties through their national conventions, which nominated their respective candidates for president and vice-presi- dent, did not mean anything. I cannot believe that the able men of both parties, clothed with such an important mission, would so belittle themselves as to put forth the lan- guage which I have quoted from them on the tariff if they did not honestly think it was for the best interests of the country. It strikes me that the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers have seen the handwriting on the wall which tells them that in the future they will have to hew to the line as well as farmers and other unpro- tected industries. The cotton manufacturers give us cotton goods as cheap as they can be bought in the world. Were it not so they could not be sending millions of dol- lars’ worth to the English market — a country which is represented as the best and cheapest cotton-cloth producer in the world. * * * * Why should men who can do this be obliged to pay two prices for woolen goods, simply to allow a quarter of a million persons called wool-growers and woolen manufacturers to be protected? Are men in a business who cannot make a living out of it without taxing other inter- ests to do it anything but paupers ? * * * * On page 7 of your pamphlet you say reducing the duties will not reduce the revenue. Suppose you take all the duties off cotton goods, do you think it would stop our cotton manufacturers from sending their goods to England ? If not, then our revenue would not be affected by that. I saw a notice within a few days that some 400 tons of Alabama iron had been bought by an English iron manufacturer and shipped to England ; while this is the case Alabama iron manufacturers will not want a duty to protect them. I should not be at all surprised to see a Pennsylvania iron association soon acting like the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers, appealing to Congress not only not to have any revision of the duties on foreign iron changed, but to enact a law prohibiting Alabama sending any of her iron to any of the Pennsylvania iron manufacturers’ customers. One thing that troubles the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers, “it disturbs the rela- tions of the industries to each other.’’ There is no doubt but what if you could get a fair, honest expression of the farmers and all other consumers of American manufact- ured woolens, so that they could get the 40 cents per pound taken off the prices they have to now pay for them, which the pamphlet plainly tells us they are now paying, 476 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. I think they wonld b© only too happy to have a disturbance of that kind of relations of industry. On page 8 the pamphlet says: “This lesson of her wise statesman England has never forgotten, while our own country has perpetually vacillated in her tariff laws.” England having many long years ago found out that the nearer free trade they could get the better it was for them, having approached very near that point, and found it to be the best system for them, they do not care to make any moves backward ; it makes no difference to them which party, whether Liber- als or Conservatives, are in power, none want to go back to a protective system of duties on imports. “Evil of apprehension*,” page 9. This reminds me of the boy who had a long journey through a wood. He was not at all scared, yet at the same time he did the liveliest kind of a whistling to keep up his courage. And just so with the woolen manufacturers; they are not afraid for themselves, but are appre- hensive for the welfare of the country at large and for fear that Congress will do something, they are keeping up a terrible howling ; they are not afraid, and do not show any fear, yet at the same time, should Congress in its wisdom see fit to do something in the way of a revision of the tariff, these wise manufacturers have taken the matter by the forelock, and laid down a system for it to act by, on page 112 : “The American manufacturer is engaged in a perpetual struggle with the manufact- urer of Europe for the possession of the markets of this country. As before said, the advantages of our competitors are our obstacles. In this strife the European manu- facturer possesses the advantage, which would be overwhelming if not counteracted by special legislation, of having the raw material of his manufacture free from duty, no duties on wool existing in Great Britain, France, Belgium, and Netherlands, and verj' slight duties, if any, in other manulacturing nations.” Now, if free wool is such a boon to woolen manufacturers of the nations referred to, let our National Associa- tion of Woolen Manufacturers come square out and say, we want to be put upon an equal footing with other manufacturing nations; we want free wool. If our wool- growers, who have all the advantages of other persons engaged in agriculture, cannot make a living only by taxing every individual man, woman, and child in America $3 a piece, I for one say let them “git up and git” for the almshouse, the place where they belong. Do not be beating around the bush ; say you want and will have tree wool — that is what you all mean, but have not the manliness to come out and admit it. * * * Congressmen are Americans, men from amongst us, with similar feel- ings and interests with ourselves ; why be afraid to trust them ? Is it that you have seen or taken a hand in bribing Congressmen heretofore that so alarms you of their coming action ? Ido not believe that taking the duty off wool will force all the wool-growers to kill their sheep. I have seen a time when the duty on wool was but a small fraction of what it is to day, and yet I saw wool bring a much higher price than it is selling for to day. Suppose the duty was taken off wool, what would likely be the result? Why, every manufacturer would be sending to London or Liverpool for wool, and as the manufacturers of other countries have heretoloie taken all the wool that came to those markets, and a few hundred buyers from Amer- ica began to compete for some of the wool, would it be likely under such circum- stances to go down in price ? I think the opposite would be the result; the extra competition of buyers would soon create a boom in those markets, and our manufact- urers would soon return to our own market, for the reason ihat foreign wool had gone up some and ours had come down some, and the result would be an equaliza- tion of prices and all would be benefited thereby, for I do believe that the American woolen manufacturer, when he is put to his own resources, is the equal of any other, and he would then bo able to supply Mexico and Central and South America with woolen goods, and be able to meet competition in any market in the world. What has made the manufacture of watches a success iu America? Just the same thing that has made American wheat, corn, beef, pork, lard, and petroleum : the simple fact that we have given the buyers of the world a better article for less money. And when American ships will do the transporting as well, as expeditiously, and as cheaply as those of any other country in the world, then they will come in for a share of the trade. If we are in a trade sending any of the above products to a foreign market for the pur- pose of making a profit out of it, and it can be transported in a foreign vessel for 10 per cent, less freight than in an American ship, what does the shrewd American do ? Why, he puts his patriotism in his pocket, for the time being, and transports his traffic in a foreign bottom. It is all -very well to have our cousuls make reports about the wants of tho people in the several countries in which they are located, yet when a manufacturer makes goods just suited to their wants, and asks 20 per cent, more for them than they cau buy an equally good article for, would any sensible man expect the American goods to find sale under such circumstances? Now, Mr. Whitman, I think I have given sufficient reasons why I cannot give you my personal co-operation in the direction in which you are moving in the matter of tariff revision. Respectfully, WILLIAM DEAN. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 477 [Wm. F. Read, silks, leather gloves. ] Philadelphia, December 31, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington : Sir: I had hoped before this to have prepared and sent to you some suggestions as to the rates of duty on wool, woolen goods, and yarns and cotton goods and yarns, as requested in your esteemed favor of the 27th of October, but have not been able to do so; will endeavor to for- ward them shortly. I have, however, embodied my ideas of what the duties on silks, &c., should be, in the inclosed, to which I invite your attention. The rates suggested may appear in some instances higher than the present, but in general they will be found lower. It would of course be quite impossible to regulate this exactly under a specific principle, and make a simple rate of duty the collection of which would be easy and effective, and a positive quantity. I have not recommended a lower duty on black silks than colored, which is a discrimination generally insisted on. The rate suggested would, if levied on many black silks as now made, yield the Treasury more than the present 50 per cent, ad valorem, but this would soon cor- rect itself. This specific rate would bear heavily on the adulterations with which the silk is loaded in dyeing, and force the manufacturer to furnish more honest goods. Making the goods of honest silk would raise their value and reduce the specific rate below the present ad valorem rate (to say nothing about undervaluation), correct an evil, and ultimately benefit the American consumer. In reference to kid gloves, I submit, in lieu of any present recommen- dation, my views as to rates as presented in the inclosed pamphlet is- sued in 1879. The failure then to get a specific rate substituted for an ad valorem rate, forced me with much loss from the business, and while I am not at all interested in it nor informed on it now, I believe that the views then expressed will apply with as much force to the present. Very respectfully, yours, WM. F. BEAD. Schedule — Silk and silk goods. Silk partially manufactured from cocoons or from waste silk and not further ad- vanced or manufactured than carded or combed silk, 50 cents per pound. Thrown silk, in gum, not more advanced than singles, tram, organzine, sewing silk, twist floss, in the gum, and silk threads or yarns purified or dyed, excepting those made from spun silk, $L per pound and 1(3 per cent, ad valorem. Spun silk, in threads, yarns, or warps, 50 cents per pound and 16 per cent, ad valorem. On lastings, mohair cloth, silk twist, or other manufactures of cloth woven or made in patterns of such size, shape, or form, or cut in such manner as to be fit for buttons exclusively, 10 per centum ad valorem. All goods, wares, and merchandise, not specially enumerated and provided for in this act, made wholly of silk, or of which silk is the component material of value over 80 per cent., and weighing over one ounce per square yard, $2 per pound and 16 per centum ad valorem. All goods as above of which silk is the component material of chief value, over 50 percent, and not exceeding 80 per cent., and weighing over one ounce per square yard, $1.50 per pound and 16 per centum ad valorem. All goods, &c., made wholly of silk or of which silk is the component material of chief value, weighing less than one ounce per square yard, 15 cents per square yard and 16 per centum ad valorem. 478 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. All goods, &c., composed of silk and cotton or other vegetable fiber, or a mixture of them, silk not being the component material of chief value, 5 cents per square yard and 16 per centum ad valorem. All goods, &c., composed of silk and wool, or other animal hair or fiber, or a mix- ture of them, silk not being the component material of chief value, 50 cents per pound and 16 per centum ad valorem. Philadelphia, December 29, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : Assuming that all importers, commission merchants, foreign manufacturers, commissionaires, and others engaged or interested in introducing goods into the United States are strictly honest, and con- scientiously desire to “ render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” no more just and equitable mode of levying duty upon all merchandise could be devised than a percentage upon market value, at the place of production, In theory, upon such a basis as this, nothing could be more perfect, as it accommodates itself exactly to the wants of the consumer, and with even-handed justice avoids all discrimination. It levies in an exact ratio ; and the coarser article used by the poorer class pays, like the better and more costly product, only its fair pro- portion of revenue. That ad valorem rates were conceived in a spirit of fairness and just- ice to all alike, admits of no question ; and that they have failed sig- nally in meting them out, either to the Government or people, can be as clearly demonstrated. All revenue laws, based upon the Utopian idea of inherent integrity in the manufacturers of foreign countries and importers of our own, have always been and will always be, failures. Foreign manufacturers are, as a class, fully conversant with our tariff laws, owe no obligations to our Government, look upon our high rates of duty as unjust impediments to the distribution of their products ; and (especially on the European continent) seek to evade the full payment of the amount legally exacted, by undervaluing market value, classify- ing qualities of a higher grade as those of a lower, and by numerous other devices, difficult of detection, and, if detected, still more difficult of proof. Much of this is also done through collusion with the importer and commission merchant here, although in some cases the latter may possibly be made, through ignorance, innocent instruments. The con- stant tendency is to increase undervaluation from competition among those undervaluing. An ad valorem rate of duty can hardly be safely levied on products having a well-known and clearly established foreign market value; while, on goods extending over a wide range of prices, produced by va- rious countries and liable to all shades of quality, it must always offer a premium for fraud, make fairness an impossibility, and cause the just to be speedily driven out of the traffic by the unjust. This latter condition is that exactly of kid and leather gloves ; and until the present ad valorem rate of 50 per cent, is changed (as it should be speedily) the Government will be defrauded largely, and the business of their importation drift entirely into unscrupulous hands. France produces real kid gloves ranging from 68 francs, or $20.40 landed here duty paid, per dozen, for ladies’ 2-button to 26.50 francs, or REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 479 $7.95, with all shades of quality and price between the two ; and in ad- dition many varieties of lambskin with equivalent variations in value. Germany, particularly Saxony, excels in lambskins, with a range of prices from 15 marks or $6, to 30 marks or $12. Austria manufactures very largely all grades of lambskin gloves, rauging from 7 florins or $5 to 15 florins, $10.50; and Italy sends from her factories leather gloves as low as 14 lire or $4.20, and as high as 30 lire or $9. When it is remembered that the leather from which this article is made is an animal product liable to all the natural variations and vicissi- tudes to which animals are subject, it is easy to realize into what nu- merous subdivisions of quality the article from which it is manufactured is capable ; and beariug this in mind it is still more easy to see with what degree of safety a heavy percentage of undervaluation can be re- sorted to. No Government officer can be expected to be expert enough to detect the slight differences in quality, and no manner of collecting duty de- pending upon any such an amount of skill can ever be reli able or satisfac- tory. Importers of kid and leather gloves in Boston, Philadelphia, Balti- more, Chicago, and ports other than New York, have gradually lost their business and found themselves unable to compete with the agents of foreign manufacturers located in the latter city. Kid gloves were freely offered and marketed there at prices often below the actual cost to land ; not for a day, or a week, or in isolated cases, but from season to season, and to all appearances the distributors reaped a profit. The Treasury Department, being apprised of this fact, instituted an in- vestigation, which revealed the existence of a combination in New York City, and indicated undervaluation of market valuein leather gloves, ranging from 25 to 40 per cent. An exhaustive report, showing how this conclusion was reached, is now on file at the Department, and it is so convincing in its character that no disinterested reader can escape the conviction that so rotten a commercial sore needs a most speedy and radical remedy. It was first shown by extracts from actual correspondence that com- missionaires and manufacturers in Italy, Austria, and Saxony were fully acquainted with our tariff, knew how to avoid payment of full duties, and openly offered to consign gloves at from 25 to 30 per cent, below market values. One of these letters dated back ten years; and all of them revealed the fact that throughout the countries from which they emanated, un- dervaluation was looked upon as a common and customary thing, to which it was necessary to resort, to market the consigned gloves to a profit. In fact, one manufacturer declined to consign to a correspondent who insisted that invoices should be made out at market value, on the ground that the American importer could not compete with those whose in- voices were being sent forward at 25 per cent, less, and therefore any consignments sent to him must be surely marketed at a loss. Selecting from the great and varied mass of leather gloves imported, the fine well-known brands of real kid, made in France, and investi- gating their market value, it was found that they were undervalued between 20 and 25 per cent. It was found also that the different makes of gloves of about the same value here were all invoiced at one fixed price, while it was a well- 480 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. known fact that tbe prices in France varied to some extent, and were measured there by reputation as well as quality. Ladies’ 2- button kid gloves of first quality, in well-known brands, were uniformly invoiced at 42 francs, with a rise of 3 francs additional for each button. Every source of information tapped by the Government revealed a value of from 52 to 68 francs for ladies’ 2-button, and a rise of not less than 5 francs and sometimes 6 francs for each additional button. While the difference of, at least, 10 francs on the ladies’ 2-button which formed the basis was of itself very serious, the additional under- valuation on the rise per button increased it enormously — 2 francs per button on 12 button gloves would allow 30 francs on each dozen to pass without payment of duty. The selling prices in this country published by the importers of the gloves in question were then taken as a basis for calculation, and regular account sales made up from them. The net proceeds from these presumed sales returned to the manufacturer more than 55 francs for 2-button, and show greater profits realized on all the additional buttons. After due consideration, with a view to test the matter, the apprais- er’s department in New York City made a general advance on all im- portations of kid and leather gloves, which led to numerous merchant appraisements, elicited much evidence, and laid bare the whole scheme. It was extremely difficult to believe that some of the best, most pre- sumedly honorable and wealthiest houses in New York City were knowingly parties to this practice; but it is still more difficult to un- derstand why they should continue to combat the Government in its efforts to break it up, when evidence from all quarters points clearly to its existence. While the Government produced invoices of similar gloves purchased on the market direct from manufacturers under the most favorable cir- cumstances as to credit and connection, original letters showing the condition of the market as to value — a letter from the manufacturers in question themselves to one of the best and most responsible houses in France quoting to them 55 francs for 2 buttons, price lists of other manufacturers showing no figure below 52 francs and rising as high as 68 francs, and oral evidence from witnesses outside of New York affirm- ing these quotations — the defense contented themselves with stigma- tizing these as irrelevant, and confined themselves almost exclusively to proving cost of production. Much oral evidence was produced, but it was the testimony of the interested managing experts of the different New York importing houses. If the records of these different merchant appraisements are exam- ined it will be found that around this profitable 42-franc sun revolved a fixed number of planets, each accompanied by its appropriate sat- ellite. Any successful attempt to increase the value of this luminary and make it shine for all, would not ouly bedim the especially favored planets, but perhaps consign the satellites to utter darkness, and hence but little reliauce was to be placed upon their sworn testimony. Without mentioning names, much that they swore to was flatly con- tradicted, both by their own subsequent testimony, as well as uninter- ested rebuttal evidence. Bearing in mind that all fine gloves in port were advanced from 42 francs to 55 francs at one time, and that it was generally understood that all other makes of tbe same grade would share the same fate on arrival; and remembering that each one of these witnesses represented some one of the makes that either had been or would be advanced, it REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 481 can readily be seen how much weight should attach to anything to which they might testify. None dare fail to sustain the invoice or case under consideration, knowing full well that the goods he represented must soon pass through the same ordeal, and lack of zeal, or conscientious scruples, would be rewarded at that time in kind. Throwing out this worthless evidence — for it was worthless, being cov- ered entirely with motive — nothing was left to oppose the overwhelming documents and testimony submitted by the Government but calcula- tions as to cost of manufacture. An examination of the assistant appraiser and examiner of leather gloves in the New York custom house by the commission revealed the fact that that department was guided entirely by the invoices of one house, and when the invoices of other houses conformed they were passed without question. The pertinent suggestion that this house was the real appraiser and examiner, as they set the example on the customs’ blackboard for all to copy, could after this admission meet with nothing but an affirmative reply. When such evidence as this can be submitted at a merchant appraisement, and it rarely happens that it can, as all former ap- praisements will show, it is difficult to understand how the merchant appraisers, before whom it is sworn to, can arrive at any other conclu- sion than that reached by the general appraiser. That they have done so in some instances, however, is the fact; and by a course of reason- ing so unique that they seem to have forgotten that they were called as judges of, and not as attorneys for, the accused. To effectually conceal the real market price of gloves entered at the custom-house, manufacturers engaged in undervaluation almost uni- formly refuse to furnish prices or price lists to any person making inqui- ries, and reply that they are so fully engaged that they have nothing to offer. Singularly, this refusal comes only from makers doing busi- ness with the United States, as with all others the reverse is the rule. Any respectable French, German, Austrian or Italian commissionaire can get and furnish to his American correspondent price-lists and samples of any gloVes not represented by an agent in the United States ; but, if it is suspected that he has American connections, the latter, without exception, refuse to furnish the information on the ground that they are fully employed. A special agent of the Treasury Department, in Paris made all sorts • of efforts to get quotations for some well-known brands sold largely in this country, and met with nothing but evasions, refusals, and rebuffs. If the prices at which the gloves were invoiced were the true prices at which they were freely offered in the market (as the law requires), there could be no object whatever in concealment; and while under contract they might be unwilling to sell except through their agent, there could be no good i^ason why the price should, be concealed. Besides, these manufacturers are a little too fond of money to turn up their noses at cash buyers, and send their gloves out to a foreign country on consignment and credit, taking the risk of the fluctuations of the market on a fancy article in preference to selling them to a cash customer at their own door. To illustrate the advantages of a specific duty : An invoice of worsted goods, paying 35 per cent, ad valorem and 50 cents per pound specific, reached the importer a short time ago; and, as an experiment, two cases of the goods were emptied and the contents placed on the scales, S. Ex. 72 31 482 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. revealing a discrepancy of 25 pounds between actual and invoice weight. The appraiser’s department was immediately notified, sent an officer to investigate, who affirmed the merchant’s weight, and in less than one hour the difference was satisfactorily adjusted to all concerned. Had this been a purely ad valorem question, it would have taken weekly and perhaps months to have arrived at any conclusion ; the merchant might have felt aggrieved and the appraiser’s department might have doubted. This case, however, was capable of adjustment by any official whose eyes were strong enough to read the figures on the beam. This duty is levied upon a textile fabric, capable of being counted, having a pretty clearly defined market value, and scarcely admitting of serious under- valuation. If deemed essential on woolen goods, subject to such conditions, how much more essential is it on animal products embracing so many varieties, manufactured in so many different countries, deprived by the nature of its chief component material from submission to any known mechanical test as to price, and relying solely upon the eye and touch of the expert ! On such an article as this an ad valorem rate is an invitation to the unscrupulous. That invitation should be promptly withdrawn and the specific remedy applied. A given number of threads to the square inch of any particular num- bers of warp and yarn will produce, if woven plain, the same identical cloth, and the value with a counting glass can be accurately deter- mined; if further advanced in manufacture by printing or dyeing, this can also be clearly arrived at. Such goods as these bear now a mixed duty, the greater percentage of which is specific. If upon textile fab- rics, where the duty of the examiner is much more easily and fairly dis- charged, it is deemed essential to place a mixed rate, largely specific, how much more imperatively necessary is it upon leather gloves, which make that duty complicated and difficult ? You ask that one man shall be so thoroughly qualified as to be able not only to detect differences in quality in an article the chief compo- nent material of which is an animal product; but also that he shall be well posted in the market prices of this same article, the manufacture of which is scattered over continental Europe. Is it known that besides the actual variations in the skius of all animals of the same species these leather gloves are produced from the hides of kids, goats, and lambs raised in France, Italy, Germany, Servia, South America, and elsewhere ; and that the dressing, tanning, dyeing, and finishing of each locality imparts to them a different character? The question is not so much whether the highly respectable firms whose names appear in the late appraisements of kid gloves are guilty or innocent of fraudulent complicity with the foreign manufacturers in their efforts to defraud the Treasury of its just legal dues ; but whether a duty levied in so loose a manner as to permit undervaluations of such magnitude should not be speedily changed. Legislatures cannot be expected to be like well-digested encyclope- dias, in which every important subject is edited by its appropriate ex- pert ; and must often fall short, either in the rate levied under laws en- acted or the mode of collection. An article like leather gloves, embracing, as it has been shown, so many grades and varieties of grades, is not a fit subject for so high an ad valorem rate as 50 per cent. ; and while the amount of duty imposed js not onerous, and forms uo good ground for complaint, the manner of REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 483 collection on value has and must always result in a loss of revenue, an uncertainty to the trade, and a demoralization of all who continue in it. If the necessities of the revenue could permit a nominal ad valorem rate of 10 per cent, upon them, it might, and probably would, be possible to honestly collect it ; but any rate as high even as 25 per cent, would be open to all these objections. As the matter stands at present, the Appraisers’ Glove Department at New York is beset with many dfficulties ; and in its efforts to compel payment of duty on actual market value, has tied up, to the disgust of the importers, large amounts of goods. To expect an examiner to be thoroughly informed of the market price of gloves from the thousand and one sources of European supply is simply ridiculous ; and it is too much to hope that any one engaged in the trade can make semi-annual pilgrimages to these places and furnish not only information but evi- dence to sustain it. Government agents might do something in this direction, but it must always fall very far short of what is required. Paris alone produces grades and varieties enough in kid, lamb, and other leather gloves sufficient to make the labors of the glove examiner, be he ever so expert and efficient, very difficult and extremely uncertain ; and when it is remembered that the Prench capital has almost as many glovemakers as our own large cities have shoemakers, who make them from the thousand dozens to the special single pair, it can be readily conceived how much he must know to honestly sit in judgment on their invoices; but, when you come to add to this gloves from Grenoble with as many makers and grades, gloves from Turin, gloves from Madrid, gloves from Naples, gloves from Vienna, gloves from Prague, from Berlin, from Altenburg, from Halberstadt, from Luxemburg, from Dres- den, from Chaumont, and other places, with their various grades and varieties, it is surely expecting too much that an examiner or appraiser, cooped up for years between the four walls of a Government building, who perhaps has never been in any of these markets, and if he has it is so long ago that his knowledge then obtained is useless now, can fairly estimate market value and detect undervaluation. Should any mode of collecting duty be continued based upon the idea that the necessary ability to do all this can be found at the price the Government pays for such services or at ten times that figure? It is clearly shown that neither the honesty of the foreign manufact- urer nor the integrity of his American agent can be relied upon for in- voices at the true market value; and when they conspire together and form a combination with others in the same business, the folly of con- tinuing an ad valorem rate is apparent. The only bulwark against fraud in the importation of this article is the specially detailed examiner, of whom more is expected than aver- age human capacity. Let him be dishonest or approachable, and it is easy to see how readily this slight safeguard is swept away. That the late dfficulties in New York, which are known as “the kid- glove question,” have produced much good and inflicted some well- merited injury cannot be questioned — they have at least caused all in- terested to turn their eyes towards some positive remedy,- Although for years the collective trade in this article in New York City has always opposed the imposition of a specific duty upon it, and successfully met all efforts to change the present ad valorem rate to one on quantity, these very dfficulties seem to have removed the scales from their eyes ; and some of them, who were before' the most bitter oppo- 484 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. nents of the chauge, are now publicly calling for it through pamphlet and newspaper. The kid-glove crusade may be said to have originated with this ob- jective point solely in view. Every previous effort made with the Com- mittee of Ways and Means seems to have failed from the exertion of some unseen influence, at the moment that it promised to bear fruit, and this thorough unveiling of the whole system to the general gaze seemed necessary. The egg that looked so fair required but to have its shell punctured to reveal its rottenness. What a pity it is that there are so many more of a like kind lying unbroken in the same basket ! Very resp’y, WM. F. EEAD. Recommendations as to change of tariff on leather gloves. Gentlemen : In compliance with your request, I beg to give you my views as to what specific rate of duty upon leather gloves would yield as much, if not more, reve- nue than the present ad valorem rate, and prevent the discrimination now existing between gloves which are imported into the country at actual market value at the place of production, and pay full duty based upon such value, and other or consigned gloves which are sent out at a presumed or fictitious value arranged between the manufacturer and his agent or the foreign seller and the importer. The Chief of the Bureau of Statistics furnished me on the 8th of February, 1878, the following statement, showing the quantities and values of leather gloves im- ported into the United States during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877 : Whence imported. Dozen pairs. J Value. Price per dozen. From Belgium 6, 377 231, 093 258, 870 99,063 310 149 $41, 024 1,356, 022 1, 186, 109 543, 517 1, 333 914 $6 43 5 86 4 58 5 48 4 26 6 13 From France "From (rfirmany . From England From Tt,fl,ly .. _ All other countries Total 595, 862 3, 128, 919 *5 25 *Average. The printed report, page 40, from the same source for the same year shows that the entered value of the aggregate withdrawal and consumption entries was $3,130,053.27, and the duty collected, at 50 per cent, ad valorem, $1,565,026.67. Taking the quantity as given and the entered value, I find that the average value per dozen pairs of all the gloves imported is $5.25 per dozen pairs, upon which has been collected $2.62£ per dozen pairs. I assume, on the grounds given on the several occasions I have had the honor to testify before your Commission, that the average undervaluation on these importa- tions reaches, at the lowest estimate, 35 per cent. ; and, adding this percentage to the figures already given, produces the value at which the importation of this article during that fiscal year should have been entered, and on which duty should have been collected, viz, $3,912,566.68 at 50 per cent., equals $1,956,283.34, or a loss to the Government, by undervaluation, of $391,256.61. Upon this basis a specific duty of $3 per dozen pairs would produce $1,787,586, and one of $3.50 would produce $2,085,517, and either rate would be acceptable, I think, and work no hardship to any interest. 1 am opposed to any discrimination whatever ; and importing as I do almost all grades of leather gloves, I have no interest in favoring one kind of leather glove at the expense of some other kind, or fostering a trade in one grade to the exclusion of another. I object' to discrimination on tin- 'round that any discriminating specific rate based REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 485 of fraud and make the services of experts still necessary, which is the one thing of all others that specific rates seek to avoid. It is difficult to distinguish the difference between real kid or goat skins and lamb or sheep skins ; the ability to do so is confined to a few, and that few comprises only those who have made it a specialty. I believe it would be safe to assert that not over 5 pfer cent, of the buyers of leather gloves in this country, outside of those engaged in their importation, are able to tell the one from the other; and I know that the unscrupulous certainly market a large quantity of lamb-skins as real kid. Besides, where kid and lamb skins are tanned, dressed, and made up by the same manufacturer, the discrimination becomes still more difficult ; and a different rate of duty levied upon goods that are, to all appearences, the same, and that require the eye and touch of the expert to distinguish their differences, would lead to endless examinations and involve the trade in. the same complications as now exist under the present ad valorem rates. A lower rate of duty on lamb-skin or sheep-skin gloves would also have a tendency to stimulate and increase their production and distribution. This is the only grade of leather which the American manufacturer has much, if any, prospect of working profitably ; and if it is desirable to protect this industry, it would operate against it to discriminate by a lower rate at the expense of real kid, and this inferior article would be more extensively foisted upon the American con- sumer. The products of lamb and sheep skin, although seemingly strong and full of stretch, are really deficient in strength, elasticity, and durability, the exact pre- requisites of good leather and the inherent qualities of real kid. Besides, there is no real dividing line between the two in foreign market value, for while real kid gloves reach as high a valuation for two-buttons as 60 francs (or more) or $11.56 per dozen, they also descend as low in price as 25 francs, or $4.82, per dozen ; and while lamb-skin gloves in the finor grades reach 28 marks, or $6.66, they fall as low as 12 francs, or $2.21, per dozen. The present fashion in leather gloves involves the consumption of greater quanti- ties of leather than formerly, and it would seem that some discrimination, based upon the extra length of leather required, which is the component material of chief value, would be desirable ; but as fashions are ephemeral, and a fashion like this, originated merely to hide deformities, may soon pass away, I should prefer one simple, clear, specific rate upon all leather gloves. If, however, it is part of your intention to consider the question of increasing the revenue derived from the importation of this article, together with the protection of the industry engaged in its production in this country, then the following specific discrimination, capable of demonstration by any inexperienced Government official, might be applied. By actual measurement I find that all one-button ladies’ gloves from the seam made to join the thumb-piece to the hand, at the centre of the crotch, to the outer edge of the welt, measure, on the average, about 3£ inches, and that each button re- quires an additional inch of leather, size 6 falling below this measurement, and size 8 rising to nearly four inches. A specific rates of $3.00 or $3.50 per dozen should, therefore, be based upon one- button gloves, and an additional rate of 25 cents per dozen be levied for each and every additional button. And as this provision might be evaded by the substitution of some other mode of fastening or no fastening at all, or some new style might be invented which this pro- vision might not cover, I would propose that for every additional inch or portion of an inch of leather in length exceeding four inches, measuring from the upper thumb- seam where it joins the hand to fit the crotch made by the thumb anrices for the same repeat (according to quality of pattern) can increase considerably more, and 494 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. only in exceptionally bad times the minimum price may for a wjiile become unit price for each repeat. To the above we must add that very often the buyers here themselves do not know the number of stitches of the goods which they buy, nor can they get to know them, and yet they would be obliged to state them and be responsible for the correctness of their statement. In short, we may look at this proposal (duty per number of stitches and cloth extra) from whichever side we like, it appears to us altogether incomprehensible and only fit to open still wider the gates to disputes and coufusion. We say, and are ready to prove, that this system of levying duties in embroideries escapes partly every control, but under all circumstances will not fail to require an apparatus in the long run insufferably unwieldy, complicated, and costly both on the part of the custom-house administration and on that of the importing merchants. It would likely lead to the fact that an official control would no longer exist. We therefore declare principally once more that the only method by which a cor- rect and uniform system of paying duties on cotton embroideries can be secured is the pure specific weight duty. Relying as we do with full confidence for the mode of introducing such a duty and its calculation on the fair feelings and good will of the American Government, we in- tend to transmit to you thereupon, within a few weeks, a more detailed memorial. Meanwhile please to accept, esteemed sir, this general disquisition of principles in question and accept the assurances of our respect and sympathy. The president : E. GONZENBACH. The secretary : WARHTT4NN. [Cotton embroideries.] Department of State, Washington , December 16, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : Referring to my communication of the 28th ultimo, inclosing a copy of a dispatch from the consul at St. Galle, relating to the applica- tion of specific duties to cotton embroideries, I now have the honor to send you inclosed a second communication from said officer, dated the 20th ultimo, relating to the same subject. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, T. F. BAYARD. United States Consulate at St. Galle, Switzerland, November 20, 1885. Hon. James D. Porter, Assistant Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. : Sir : I have now the honor to transmit to you the document of details from the “Commercial Corporation of St. Galle,” addressed to this consulate on the 17th of this month, in regard to cotton embroidery duty matters, which was spoken of in my communication to you in No. 15, dated November 2, 1885. I have the honer to be, your obedient servant, . PETER STAUB, Consul. St. Gallen, November 17, 1885. Das Kaufmannisclie Directorium to the Consul of the United States of America in St. Gall: Esteemed Sir : If we now take the liberty of laying before you, briefly told and in completion of our address of the 22d October, the material by us collected for an eventual transmutation of the American ad valorem duty on embroideries and kindred articles into a specific duty on the weight, we trust we need not assure you that by no means we claim a right to encroach in any way on the internal affairs of the Government of the United States. To us it is a matter of course that your Government will at any time fix the cub- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 495 toms on our goods and their method entirely according to its own judgment and opinion. But we believe that it will only be agreeable and serviceable to the American authorities who have to settle these questions if they get from us the data and in- formation necessary to clear up their particulars. The proper starting point for any transmutation of an ad valorem duty into a duty on the weight is evidently the ascertaining of the average value of the article to which the new duty has to be applied. In order to see to the bottom of this question as far as machine embroideries on cotton (net lacefground excepted) are concerned, we have in the first instance invited the houses here which export these goods to the United States to give us the average value of their respective shipments mom 1st October, 1884, till 30th September, 1885, and have got willing information from nineteen of these firms. We then set up for the machine embroideries (Hamburgs embroideries on net excluded) 5 categories, viz : very common, common, medium, good, and fine, and got the average value per kilogram of a number of patterns of every particular category calculated by a special committee selected out of the above nineteen firms. Besides the average values which resulted from this proceeding, we now also took into consideration and account the percental share which every category had in the total amount of the importations of machine embroideries, and the result of these combined calculations was an average value of 22.23 francs for one kilogram (net goods excluded) shipped to the United States. If we now take in hand the statistical surveys of the traffic between Switzerland and foreign countries which have been published since 1st January, 1885, we find that they show in the first nine months of this year a total exportation of 8,687 metrical hundredweights, and value of 20,056,628 francs of machine embroideries shipped to the United States, which makes per one kilogram almost exactly an average value of 23 francs. It must be noticed here that the declarations for statistical surveys are always made according to the somewhat higher insured value of the goods, and that, agreeably to prescription, cost of carriage to the frontier has to be included. Our calculations, therefore, coincide completely with the reports of our official com- mercial statistics, and we can with perfect tranquillity accept them as reliable. Taking now into consideration that by levying duties by the weight, frauds are no longer possible, we are on our part convinced that the receipts of the American custom-house would not be prejudiced or injured with a duty of 7 francs per kilo- gram or 60 American cents per English pound, on the imported machine embroider- ies (Hamburgs). Without mentioning the decrease of expenditure connected with the simplification of levying and controlling the duties, all the while the popular goods for the less opulent classes of society would not suffer from any increase of cost worth mentioning. Of course, however, we would only be glad if the American Government would consent to favor the low-priced staple articles still more by reducing the duty on embroideries to a rate about equal to that of the European industrial states which levy duties for protection. We think that the machine embroideries on net should be taxed separately, partly on account of their higher average value, partly also because they can easily be dis- tinguished from the embroideries on other grounds or material, such as cambrics, jac- conets, nainsooks, muslins, the qualities of which often imperceptibly pass one into another of these materials. Our calculations show the average value of machine embroideries on net to be about 25 francs to 26 francs per kilogram. A duty of 7.80 francs per kilogram, or 70 cents per English pound, on these net embroideries would correspond with the above-men- tioned tax of 7 francs per kilogram, or 60 cents per English pound, on the other ma- chine embroideries. The embroidered net (lace) curtains have, according to our calculations, an average value of, at most, 20 francs per kilogram. In conformity to above-mentioned pro- portions the result would be a weight duty of 6 francs per kilogram, or 50 cents per English pound. Alongside with the e mbroidered curtains we would range all the other lock-stitch (tamboured) articles. Under the reign of a fair weight duty we would allow deduction from the gross weight, as tare, the weight of the cases (boxes) and cartoons only, which would greatly simplify the dispatch and control in the custom-house. With regard to the woven cotton goods which are exported to the United States from this consular district, we have to take into consideration only the so-called plumetis (spotted aud sprigged muslins), plain muslins, jacconnets, and nainsooks, both white, gray, and partly colored, and some handkerchiefs woven in colors. Out of these articles the plumetis muslins seem qualified for a separate position, which we would tax with a uniform weight duty equal to that of the embroidered curtains, as their average value per kilogram is about the same. 496 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. We, however, acknowledge once more that the basis of the number of the threads per square inch is not an irrational one for woven goods, but we believe that if this basis will not be abandoned, only and exclusively the weight should furthermore be taken into consideration, in order to escape here also all taxation disputes and in the interest of a prompt dispatch in the custom-house. The muslins and similar tissues which count up to 100 threads warp and weft on the square inch have an average value of per kilogram, those from 101 to 200 threads an average value of 9 francs per kilogram, those above 200 threads an average value of 12^ francs per kilogram. The tissues, all colored, with 101 to 200 threads have an average value of about 7 francs per kilogram. We lay these figures before you in case a change of the system in taxing these woven articles should be entered into, allowing, however, that with the modest share we have of the total importation of woven cotton goods we can scarcely lay much stress upon them. Having now submitted to you with full frankness the relations and circumstances of our export trade with the United States, we beg to express the pleasing hope that this open exposition may only serve for the best of the hitherto so lively intercourse of our district with the United States. With pleasure we hold ourselves to the disposition of the highly-respected Ameri- can consul here for any future similar emergencies, and have the honor to sign, with perfect esteem, The president of the Board of Merchants, E. GONZENBACH. The secretary : WARHNANN. [Parrott & Co., bags and bagging .] San Francisco, November 18, 1885. The Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the United States Treasury , Washington : Dear Sir : In reply to your circular of August 1, in which you ask us to give our views as to the feasibility of u simplifying the tariff and making the duties specific upon imported merchandise, &c., we beg to say that we consider that the duties of the custom-house officials would be greatly simplified, and the business of honest merchants would be carried on more satisfactorily, if specific rates were levied on bags imported from Calcutta. Under the present laws merchants (and especially those who carry on their business on a straightforward basis) are under a disadvan- tage from the uncertainty of the actual cost of the goods on arrival, for the following reason, viz : Goods are purchased, say, in April, May, June, or later ; they are shipped in, say, December or January following. If the price paid for the goods be higher than similar goods are worth at time of shipment, the duty is payable on the price actually paid. But should the price paid be below the market price at time of ship ment, then our invoices are raised to the latter price, and duty is paid accordingly. Sales of these goods are frequently made before they are shipped ; but such sales are made on an uncertain basis, for we cannot calculate the actual cost until the ship carrying the goods has sailed. Thus transactions that appear to be perfectly safe at the time they are made turn out to result in a loss, owing to an advance in the Calcutta market — an event which we are entirely unable to foresee. On the other hand, should the Calcutta market decline after our pur- chases are made, and prior to the sailing of the vessel bringing them forward, we are at a disadvantage as compared with unscrupulous mer- chants, who, in such an event, would not admit that they bought the goods months before the sailing of the vessel, but would invoice them at the price then current. To render the administration of the revenue laws more effective and REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 497 uniform than at present; to enable merchants to calculate with cer- tainty the actual cost of the goods, and thus sell intelligently, and to prevent the honest merchant from being at a disadvantage as com- pared with his unscrupulous competitor, we take the liberty of suggest- ing that specific duties be levied on bags and bagging, and as you ask our opinion as to the rates that should be levied in lieu of the present ad valorem rates, we think that it would be just and proper to let the duty on — Cents. Wheat-sacks, 12 oz., 22 by 36 Wheat-sacks, 20 by 36 Ore-sacks, 14 by 24 Bean-sacks, 18 by 30 Potato-sacks, 29 by 30 Burlaps, up to 16 oz Hop cloth Woolpacks ..per bag.. 1 do 1 do 1 . . per bag . . 1 ....do li per yard . . 1 ... do li 4* The bulk of the shipments consists of 22 by 36 wheat-sacks, of which the imports in 1883-’4 were 28,816,000; in 1884-’5, 23,738,000, of which we had, respectively, 7,082,000 and 3,000,000. Thanking you for the opportunity of expressing our views, and trust- ing that a change will be made in the method of levying duties on these goods, We remain, dear sir, yours truly, PARROTT & CO. [Nye & Wait, carpets.'] Auburn, N. Y., December 18, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning: Sir: Inclosing our approval of the sentiments expressed by the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, we specially call your attention to that portion expressed in italics.* Not a pound of wool grown in this country is used in the goods we manufacture — ingrain carpets. The wools used in the manufacture of this class of goods come principally from Russia, South America, the East Indies, and the Orient. The duties imposed on these wools, if removed, would mate- rially lessen the cost of the manufactured goods to the consumer, and in our opinion increase the consumption. Very truly, yours, NYE & WAIT. ["The British Hosiery Company.] Thornton, Near Providence, R. I., December 15, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir : We beg to inform you that we approve of the policy in relation to a revision of the tariff set forth by the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, in response to your circular of July 18. The features of the policy set forth in that response which we espe- cially approve are : 1st. That there shall be no change at present in the existing wool *The words in italics are, “So long as a duty is imposed upon wool.” S. Ex. 72 32 498 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. and woolen tariff, nor a general tariff revision at the next session of Congress. 2d. That in* case of any revision of the tariff, so long as a duty is im- posed upon wool , it is indispensable for the prosperity of the woolen manufacture that the present system of compound duties upon woolens should be strictly maintained. We have recently established ourselves here, having removed from England with our machinery and work people (about 160 of the latter, and a plant worth about $60,000). We were driven to this step by the declining of our trade in England, brought on, as we believe , by the mistaken policy of “free trade’ 7 ; and we have been encouraged to come to this country and make our homes here by your protective tariff as it at present exists, under which we can build up a large business and pay our hands from 20 to 40 per cent, higher wages than we paid them in England, but a reduction in the tariff would be disastrous to our en- terprise. Yours, respectfully, British Hosiery Company. B. W. COOPER, President (P. Jansen, wool.) Fairbury, Nebr., December 5, 1885. To His Excellency Secretary Manning, Washington , D. C. : Dear Sir: Will you please permit me, in behalf of the wool-growers of the State of Nebraska, whom I have the honor to represent, to add my protest against any further agitation of the tariff question during the next session of our national Congress $ Our industry (the production of wool) has been seriously embarrassed after the late reduction of the duties on this staple. Thousands of flock- masters have retired from the business and sent their flocks to the shambles, whose natural destiny was to help, by their increase, utilize our vast grazing lands. During the past six months confidence seemed to return to sheepmen that wool would at least go no lower and that they had a safe basis on which to operate. Without tiring you with details, which from my Republican standpoint probably would not co- incide with your views, I simply wish to say, that any further agitation of the vexed question would be of incalculable disaster not only to our own interests, but also to those of the whole country. I have the honor to be, dear sir, your obedient servant, P. JANSEN, President Nebraska Wool- Groicers ’ Association. [Crawford, Cree & Co., wool .] Glasgow, December 4, 1885. Sir: In consequence of an application made to us by the United States consul, Mr. J. H. Underwood, for information as to the present value of Scotch carpet wools, we beg respectfully to take the liberty of writing these lines in the hope that they may be of some interest. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 499 Two years ago some correspondence passed between our firm and your Department, represented then by the late Hon. Mr. Folger and Mr. Secretary French, on the subject of irregularities practiced by shippers from this country in the invoice valuation put upon these wools. In a letter dated October 19, 1883, we pointed out the various means by which your tariff was evaded, viz, by the augmentation of the price of lower priced wools and depression of higher priced in the same invoice, for the express purpose of getting both admitted at the low duty rates ; for example, 1,000 bales Laid Highland Wool, market price 44$., could be invoiced at 4 f$., and 1,000 bales White Highland, market price 6Jd., could be entered at 5f $., and in this way the 64$. wool, really subject to the higher duty, got admitted a^ the lower. This dishonest practice can be carried into many classes of carpet wools, thus carpet Haslock, market price of which was at the time 8 J$., was invoiced at 9 4$. and 10 $., and thus a margin was left for purchasing further quantities of 64$. White Highland and passing them at the low duty price of 5J$. Again, in the article called “Washed White High- land,” market price 7 $. to 8$ ., the Id. grade could be invoiced at 8 $., and again a margin arrived at to purchase 64$. grade and invoice at 5f $. Another question arose : suppose the Glasgow market is cleared of this article, “White Highland wool, at 5|$.,” was it permissible to buy at that price in the Highlands, say, for example, Inverness, and add the carriage as a legitimate charge, without raising the cost price of the wool ? Different views on this subject seemed to be entertained on your side, and no definite result was arrived at, the correspondence was dropped, matters remaining in the same most unsatisfactory position. We have no information to give that such practices have been followed lately, because prices of carpet wools have been so low during the past year that large quantities have been shipped at the low duty price, legiti- mately bought, but we think the time has again come when, owing to reduced stocks, the price may advance to 64$., and if this happens the same practices will undoubtedly be resorted to by unscrupulous export- ers, and, as a commencement, we know of wools having been bought in quantity at 5J$. in the country , and the carriage to this port added in in- voice, as a legimate charge, without increasing the cost, which practice our correspondence left in a doubtful position, and honorable merchants are unwilling to run any risk by taking the chance of their shipments being passed or arrested. The cure for all this confusion seems to us a very easy and simple one, viz, to put a small fixed duty upon carpet wools, a simple and comprehensive expression, embracing all wools used in the manufacture of carpets. The duty might either be fixed at cents per pounds, irrespective of grades or prices, or if that should be thought objectionable, let it be an ad valorem duty of a percentage on each invoice. This would relieve your valuators at the ports of the difficult, and, in many cases, almost impossible duty of fixing the values of different grades of wool, and the whole business would be put upon a simple, intelligent, and practicable footing. We would most respecfully ask you, sir, to submit the remarks we have made to the honorable the chief Secretary, and, in hope that they may meet with some considera- tion, We remain, most respectfully, yours, CRAWFORD, CREE & CO. Hon. Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State , Washington , U. S. A. 500 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [Cherry juice or fruit juice.] Brooklyn, December 21, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C. : Dear Sir : Availing myself of the invitation extended in your mes- sage as to suggestions from merchants, I would respectfully call your attention to the article so-called cherry juice, which is allowed to come in from Germany under a merely nominal duty. And now, in view of the attitude of that country in prohibiting the importation of our hog products, we can retaliate in a measure by charging at least the fifty cents of all duty now exacted from all wines, as this article in question is not a cherry juice but a cherry wine, as it is the result of fermenta- tion of the juice of the black cherry of Germany, and should rank as wine and pay the same duty as other wine. This article is imported in very large quantities, and is not used for any legitimate purpose, and is mainly sold by the dealers as blackberry brandy after being sweetened, mixed with distilled spirits, and flavored. Blackberry brandy is a well-known medicinal agent, often recom- mended by physicians, and the use of this decoction of so-called black- berry brandy deceives the people and defeats the object of the doctor. It is also extensively used in the adulteration of port wine and in the fabrication of imitation wine, on account of its cheapness; consequently depriving the Government of the import duty that would otherwise be paid on greater importations of wine, if this article was put on a par as to import duty with other wines. You will be surprised when you learn of the large amount of this so- called cherry juice that is imported, and which, as stated, is used for producing a spurious article. If a sufficient duty was imposed on this cherry wine, which is its proper designation, it would stimulate the culti- vation of the blackberry to such an extent as to give employment to thousands of young people all over the States, and at the same time benefit the wine interest of the Pacific Slope, and destroy an illegitimate trade that is injuring the health of the people. I have no personal interest in this matter except to see the Govern- ment get all the revenue it is entitled to. I have the honor to remain, your obedient servant, [The Wine and Spirit Traders’ Society of the United States, wines and liquors .] Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir : In accordance with the terms of your circular letter, we have the honor to lay before you the following views in regard to the best method of assessing and collecting the duties on wines, spirits, and malt liquors, and to the rates of duties thereon. In regard to the system of assessing specific duties on all wines, spirits, and malt liquors, which was adopted by Congress at our suggestion in 1875, we have to say only that it has proved entirely satisfactory to the merchant and, we believe, to the Government ; that it is inexpensive to the Treasury and beneficial to the consumer. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 501 We earnestly recommend its continuance, and deprecate any return whatever to ad valorem duties, as they engender endless complications and open the door to fraud. We recommend that the time during which wines, spirits, and malt liquors are allowed to remain in bond be made unlimited, and that duty be assessed and collected only on the quantity of merchandise withdrawn for consumption, subject to such regulations for the protection of therevenne as may be provided by your Department. The principle of an unlimited bonding period has been thoroughly tested in England, and the result has been that London is now recog- nized as the bonded warehouse of the world, and the merchants who want to find old spirits and wines go to the London Docks to look for them. The adoption of the principle here would soon put New York in the same position. We make this recommendation on the further ground that, if the principle be recognized that duty is due and payable only on such quan- tity of merchandise as goes into consumption in the country, the con- sumer will be provided with a far better quality of wines, spirits, and malt liquors than he could otherwise get. This would increase con- sumption and the revenue would be correspondingly increased ; it would also improve the tastes of our people, and would encourage bet- ter and more sensible methods of consumption. Thus would be formed habits of moderate drinking, that the experience of the world has taught us are the only radical cure for intemperance. We recommend the abolition of all penal, warehousing, and trans- portation bonds, on the ground that, as the merchandise is in the ab- solute possession of the Government, it is a useless hampering of the business of the merchant to force him to give bonds for the payment of duty, when he cannot obtain possession of his property until the duty is paid. On the same principle, the importer or buyer should be entitled to have his goods transported in bond immediately, without further complications, to such port of entry as may suit the necessities of his trade. It is beyond our province to suggest here the various plans that might be adopted in lieu of these irritating and practically useless bonds $ but it is evident that many simple and safe plans could be devised to relieve the merchant in this respect. For instance, when goods are entered for consumption before the entry is liquidated (an exceptional occurrence), a deposit .in excess of the estimated duty might be required, as is done now for spirits. We suggestthat the merchant should not be required to leave his office and appear personally at the custom-house to confirm verbally an oath that he has already signed. His signature, which could be registered at the custom-house, should have as much weight there as it has on his checks at his bank, where his personal presence, even for very large amounts, is not required. We recommend the abolition of the stamp at present affixed to im- ported wines, spirits, and malt liquors, as it is of no benefit to the reve- nue or the buyer ; it is a useless expense to the former, and for the latter it is no protection, since it often serves as an aid to fraud, thereby oper- ating to the disadvantage of the honest dealer. We recommend a provision of law permitting, under such regulations as may be prescribed by your Department, the sale to vessels of all nationalities of foreign wines, spirits, and malt liquors to be consumed at sea without payment of duty. This would give us a large trade that is now lost to us by the present regulations, which force foreign vessels to buy their stores abroad, when they would prefer to get them here. 502 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Under the present regulations goods coming into the port of New York, destined for certain southern ports, must be transported, if trans- shipped in bond, over the railway lines of a certain company, the only one that is bonded. We recommend the bonding of more railway and steamship lines, so that merchants may be relieved of the heavy tax now imposed by that monopoly. We recommend a law forbidding the vaporization of any mash in any building other than a legally registered distillery. We recommend the abolition of consular certificates on the invoices of all wines, spirits, and malt liquors, as these certificates are of no ben- efit to the Government, and are an unnecessary expense and cause de- lay to the merchant; as, for instance, in Burgundy, whence invoices have to be sent to Lyons or Havre for certification. We recommend also that fees be abolished, and that duties be paid in certified checks, or by some other system recognized in the particular port of entry for the safety of the funds of the merchant and in the in- terest of the Government. We recommend that the rate of duty on foreign spirits be fixed at $1 per gallon entered for consumption, or, in other words, at about the same as the tax on domestic distilled spirits, and proportionally for spirits imported in bottles, but no additional duty should be imposed on the bottles. We make this recommendation because we believe that this rate is the best that could be made in the interest of the Government and our trade; but, feeling that our views will hardly be shared by Congress or the American distiller, we suggest a rate of $1.50 per gallon entered for consumption, that being the rate with which the distilling interests of the country have expressed themselves satisfied. We recommend a duty of 25 cents per gallon entered for consumption on all still wines in casks, and a proportional duty on such wines im- ported in glass. We believe that this rate would very soon increase the consumption of American wine, and that it would enable the producer to find for his goods a market that is now lost to him ; but, for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph, we suggest that the rate on still wines be restored to 40 cents, as agreed upon, in 1875, by our society and the American wine-makers. The change to 50 cents, made by the tariff of 1883, was not in accordance with the express desires of any portion of the trade, but was made in obedience to the suggestion of misinformed enthusiasts. We recommend a duty of no more than $4 per dozen of so-called quart- bottles of sparkling wine, and a proportional rate on larger or smaller bottles, with no additional duty to be collected on the bottles or pack- ages. We are of the opinion that this rate will afford ample protection to the American manufacturer of sparkling wines, and that it would not in any way diminish the consumption of his production. We recommend the following rates of duty on ale and beer and other malt liquors : Ten cents per gallon of 282 cubic inches in wood, and 15 cents per gallon in glass bottles, the additional duty of 5 cents per gal- lon in glass bottles being in lieu of any separate or additional duty on bottles. We recommend also a specific rate of duty on ginger ale and soda water. We take the liberty of inclosing an extract from the report made by the English commissioners of customs in the year 1857, addiug merely that, in their report of 1885, they state that the experience of twenty- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 503 eight years has only confirmed the views given below. We respectfully solicit your careful attention to their arguments and statements, as especially bearing upon our recommendations. We remain, sir, yours, respectfully, Charles McK. Leoser, president. Chas. Renauld, treasurer and secretary pro tempore , of Renauld & Niederstadt. E. C. La Montagne, of E. La Montagne & Son. A. B. Purdy, of Purdy & Nicholas. F. Pares Osborn, of John Osborn, Son & Co. Alex. D. Shaw & Co., by Alex. D. Shaw. C. A. Du Yivier, of Du Yivier & Son. Henry Nichols & Co., by Henry F. Nichols. S. McCullagh, of McCullagh & Co. Chas. W. Lawrence, of H. Webster & Co. Charles Graef, by F. Drag, attfy. Timothy Stevens. Gonzalez, Byass & Co., by Charles H. Pye. Chas. F. Schmid & Peters. John Burke, of Edward & John Burke. W. Kessler, of G. Ammick & Co. Lawrence Myers & Co. Galvrey & Cared o. F. O. de Luyties. All members of the council. [Extracts from the first report of the commissioners of Her Majesty’s customs on the customs. 1857. J It is obvious that the commerce of this country could never have attained its actual enormous magnitude unless, to the greatest conceivable enterprise on the part of mer- chants, had been added the most liberal disposition on the part of the Crown to give every possible facility for the rapid and simple dispatch of business. Even the large reductions of duty which have been sanctioned year by year would have been ren- dered comparatively inoperative if tedious formalities and needless restrictions on the part of the revenue officers*of the Executive had been suffered to interfere with the generous intentions of the legislature. For a long series of years, however, it has been the aim of this department to afford to trade all possible facilities which can be rendered compatible with the security of the revenue, and these facilities are still in course of extension from year to year. It became early apparent that the exaction, immediately on landing, of duties pay- able on goods which yet might be many months on hand before they were entirely disposed of, was a heavy extra tax upon the importer, and required considerable addi- tional capital to meet it. The first relief afforded was by the Act of 12 Charles II. c. 13, A. D. 1660, which permitted the merchant to give bond for payment of the duty within nine months, in lieu of paying at once and receiving the usual mitigation. In other words, it offered him his choice between nine months’ credit or 10 per cent, discount. The obvious inequity and impolicy of levying revenue alike upon articles consumed in the country and articles re-exported to foreign lands, also soon presented itself to the minds of o nr legislators ; and in the same year (by 12 Charles II. c. 4) the exporting merchant was permitted to claim, or, “ drawback,” the whole amount of duty which he had paid into the exchequer in the case of silk, linen, and tobacco, and half the amount in case of all other articles, a distinction which subsequent tar- iffs largely modified and at length wholly swept away. The “warehousing (or bonding) system,” however, with its various branches, affords the greatest facility and presents the greatest practical improvement yet introduced. It allows imported goods to be “warehoused” under due precautions, and for a re- newable period of five years, leaving to the merchant the privilege of paying duty only when the goods are removed for actual consumption, or of escaping the payment of duty altogether by removing them for exportation. The first approach to this now perfected system is traceable in the year 1700, when the wrought silks of India and Persia (the use Of which was prohibited at home) were permitted to be placed in 504 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. fit warehouses for exportation, ou due security beiug given by the merchant for car- rying out such destination. In 1709 pepper was allowed to be deposited in “approved” warehouses on payment of half “subsidy,” the other half being demanded when the article went into consumption, or, in case of its re-exportation, not being claimed at all. In 1~42 rum was allowed to he warehoused under Crown locks, and on bond be- ing given for the payment of duty when taken out for home consumption ; and shortly afterwards tea, rice, and tobacco were admitted to the same privilege. A general “ warehousing act ” was passed in 1803, extending the system with a niggard and re- luctant hand, both as regards localities and articles. Various subsequent enactments greatly enlarged the privileges and facilities then granted ; and in the year 1825* when the customs laws were consolidated by Mr. Hume’s eleven acts, the system had nearly attained its present form and extension. Now nearly every port of any size in the kingdom contains licensed warehouses for bonding ; and every year new warehouses are thus licensed by the board after due examination with reference to the security they offer against fraud, and after taking a bond from the proprietor of the warehouse in a sum large enough to cover the risks of the Crown on the goods to be deposited therein. The privileges and facilities now included under the warehousing regulations are many and great, and a large majority of them, including some of the most important, have been for many years enjoyed. 1. The premises are under Crown locks, but access to them is freely permitted with the knowledge and in the presence of the officers of the customs, for the purpose of sampling, for sale, or any other legitimate object. 2. Not only is the merchant only liable to pay duty when he actually removes his goods for home consumption, but in the case of such articles as are liable to natural waste or deterioration from leakage or evaporation, &c. — as sugar, wines, spirits, tobacco, &c. — he is only called upon to pay upon the quantity remaining at the time of removal, thus saving the duty on any deficiency which may have arisen from nat- ural causes, and liable to no suspicion of fraud. 3. Though no actual manufacture is permitted to be carried on in bond, yet many processes scarcely distinguishable from manufacture, designed to improve the articles warehoused, and render them more easily or conveniently salable, are allowed. Un- der such regulations as the board may deem fit for the security of the revenue, large packages may be divided into smaller ones; wine and spirits may be “racked” from hogsheads and pipes into quarter or half-quarter casks ; wine may be sweetened or “fortified”; wines and spirits may also be vatted and blended, and even bottled, though for exportation only. Of course privileges so valuable as those we have enumerated were certain to be largely employed, and to give rise, with the expansion of trade, to a demand for a largely increased warehousing accommodation. This has been especially the case in the port of London. In 1850 it was found that the provision afforded by the various docks (to which the Victoria Docks have since been added), * extensive as it was, was still inadequate to the requirements of commerce ; and in February, 1851, your lordships directed that privileges analogous to those enjoyed by the old bonded warehouses, but subject to varying and special limitations, should be granted to cer- tain sufferance wharves on the south side of the river, which were already in posses- sion of some, though comparatively limited, rights of bonding. A similar order was subsequently issued in favor of specified localities on the north bank ; and at present, besides the docks and “ legal quays,” landing privileges are exercised by no less than 87 “ sufferance wharves,” of which 35 have bonding warehouses and 15 have, or may obtain, the privilege of receiving all goods, except silks, tobacco, and goods ware- housed for exportation only. Besides these, your lordships have sanctioned the ex- tension of bonding privileges for wine and spirits to private vaults situated within 500 yards from any part of the river between London Bridge and Brewers’ Quay — a concession of which the trade has not been slow to avail itself. Already six vaults, capable of holding in the aggregate above 10,000 pipes, have been approved, and others are in course of preparation. It has long been desired both by the merchant and the Government to render this country the great commercial emporium of the world — the central rendezvous where goods of all sorts should come, not only for consumption, but for distribution like- * These docks were thrown open in November, 1855, but are still (1857) in an in- complete condition. The principal basin, about 100 acres in extent, is already dim out and in use. In the short time which has elapsed since the opening, these docks have been used by 1.542 vessels with an aggregate tonnage of 540,782 tons, and the follow- ing articles have been deposited in the bonding warehouses and vaults; 16,000 casks of wine, 1,300 casks of rum, 800 casks of brandy, 5,300 cases of brandy, 2,500 casks of various foreign spirits, 2,500 casks of British spirits for exportation, 19,600 bags of rice. 6,800 bags of sugar, besides other sundries, amounting in the whole to 557,887 packages up to November 30, 1856. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 505 wise. To effect this object, a large relaxation of custom-house! regulations has been introduced, so as to facilitate transshipment in our ports and transit through the country by land from port to port. In the ordinary course it was the practice for such goods to come hither duly entered for exportation only, and, after undergoing the examination necessary to satisfy the officer of the integrity of the transaction and the nature of the article to be warehoused, to wait a convenient opportunity, on the occurrence of which they were cleared, bond being given for their actual exportation. Under this system a very large transit trade has arisen, which, however, it was thought desirable and found practicable to extend. By your lordships’ minute of April 23, 1850, founded on a report of Lord Granville’s commission of inquiry, regulations were established under which goods may be simply transshipped fromthe import to the ex- port vessel in the same port, and perhaps lying alongside. In this case, provided the merchandise in question be duly reported as “in transit,” the importer is allowed to take out both his inward and outward documents at once, and the goods may be re- moved direct as desired, subject — unless fraud be suspected — only to such a trivial examination as may suffice to verify the correctness of the entry for statistical pur- poses. The few years that have elapsed since this system was established have been enough to show how great a boon it must, have been. The amount of merchandise thus dealt with during the last five years has been as follows: Declared value. 1851 £2,965,335 1852 3, 706, 662 1853 5, 278, 074 1854 5,046,348 1855 3,582,664 The decrease in 1855 is chiefly attributable to a falling off in the article of spirits hitherto transmitted through Great Britain. But the aggregate increase in the num- ber of this class of transactions still continues. The transshipments in London were 1,944 in 1855, and 2,912 in 1856. The number of packages transshipped, including a large quantity of the most valuable articles, increased from 250,000 in 1855 to 392,000 in 1856. In the case of ^oods which require to be shipped from a different port to that at which they arrived, they are allowed to be forwarded by railway, under such regu- lations as the safety of the revenue may suggest. A large trade is now carried on in this way between Hull and Liverpool, and instances have occurred of goods being forwarded in transit from Grimsby to Liverpool, and from Hartlepool to Hull ; but up to this date no other railway company has complied with the specified require- ments. The attention of the commissioners of customs has also been sedulously directed to- wards the removal of all troublesome and unnecessary forms in the documentary routine required from masters of vessels and importers, and towards simplifying, facilitating, and expediting such as could not be dispensed with. For the more prompt dispatch of business, some officers of the long room are required to attend at 8 o’clock in the morn- ing during 8 months in the year, and at 9 o’clock during the remaining 4 months ; and in urgent cases of steam vessels carrying perishable goods, their report is allowed to be taken by officers on the station as early as 5 or 6 o’clock a. in., when the discharge of cargo may also commence. The rectification of errors in reports and entries is also made much easier than formerly. “Permission to amend,” which originally had in all cases to be applied for to the Board, can, under a series of minutes, beginning in 1841, be granted by the collector or the landing officers wherever the error is slight or the difference of duty involved less than 10s. (or 20 s. in the case of ad valorem du- ties where the undervaluation does not exceed 50 per cent.). The number of these small errors and inaccuracies is very great, and the delay and trouble spared by the new arrangements may be estimated from the fact that during the last year (1856) 416 cases were thus summarily disposed of in London, which in former times would have all come before the board. In order to avoid the risk of loss by the habit of intrusting sums for the payment of duties to young clerks who had to pass through crowded thoroughfares, and also the possible facilities and temptations to peculation, arrangements were made two years ago by which in London checks might be received in lieu of cash. The checks thus received are of two kinds, usual drafts upon city bankers, which are taken by the receiver-general’s clerks for “ acceptance” before the entry to which they relate is definitively passed, and “ bank paper” or “ customs notes,” which is a special docu- ment supplied by the Bank of England on deposit of the equivalent amount, and is payable only for customs duties. The extent to which merchants have availed them- selves of this privilege is shown by the proportionate account to be very large. It will be seen that though the largest number of payments are made in cash, "the largest amounts are paid in bankers’ checks or customs notes. Many minor facilities afforded year by year both to the mercantile and the geueral 506 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. public might be enumerated, but we have touched upon all the principal, with one exception ; this exception, however, is a most important one. We refer to the entire abolition of all gratuities or fees. The merchant is now subjected to no tax of any sort beyond the actual customs duty levied by act of Parliameut ; whereas in former days this constituted only a portion, and sometimes not the principal portion, of the various payments he was called upon to make before he could obtain possession of his goods. These payments consisted in part of fees received by the various officers im- mediately concerned in the transaction of his business, and in part of fines inflicted for erroneous entries and trifling contraventions of a most voluminous and compli- cated law. Under the influence of the various circumstances upon which we have touched in the preceding pages — the simplification of the tariff the reduction of duties, and the facilities afforded to merchants and shippers — the commerce of Great Britain has shown a marvelous increase, and the revenue a still more marvelous' elasticity. It is not here the place to expound in any detail the effect of specific fiscal changes (as to the wisdom of which at the time considerable difference of opinion existed) on the trade, the consumption, and the taxation of the country, but we may be permitted to draw attention to a lew general results which the statistics of the last twenty or twenty-five years forcibly exposed. Between the years 1831 and 1834 the first very extensive steps were taken in the removal of prohibitions and the reduction and re- mission of customs duties. These were followed, in 1842 and 1844, by still bolder ad- vances in the same direction, and every successive year has seen further progress, cul- minating in the vastly reduced and simplified tariff of 1853. The net aggregate of these reductions amounts to above ten millions. Yet, notwithstanding, the customs revenue has scarcely varied for the last twenty years, ranging steadily from twenty- two to twenty-three millions. In 1835 the gross income was £23,149,000 ; in 1855 it was £23,482,000. With the reduction of duties, and the removal of all needless and vexatious re- strictions, smuggling has greatly diminished and the public sentiments with regard to it have undergone a very considerable change. The smuggler is no longer an ob- ject of general sympathy or a hero of romance, and people are beginning to awake to the perception of the fact that his offense is less a fraud on the revenue than a rob- bery of the fair trader. , (Herbert Myrick, tobacco. ) December 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the United States Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Dear Sir : Pardon the liberty I take in inclosing for your inspection some suggestions from the New England Homestead of this date rela- tive to the tobacco tariff. The inclosure marked No. 1 indicates a simple means for providing a safeguard against fraud in goods imported into the United States. The matter has been commended by several Congressmen. In No. 2 are contained several proposed substitutes for a portion of the existing tobacco schedule of the tariff act of 1883. Whatever may be said of the rates of duty therein mentioned, permit me to urge upon your attention the peculiar wording of the draft prepared by the officers of the New England Tobacco Growers’ Association, as shown at para- graphs marked A and B in No. 2 inclosure. It appears to me, after an. exceedingly thorough investigation, that this phraseology is what is wanted; that importers will have to pay the higher rate on wrappers in- tended by the spirit and letter of the existing but defective law, while the clause u excepting fillers and filler-grades 79 will permit the importa- tion at the lower rate of Havana leaf of those grades, which our growers and dealers want admitted at the lower rate because thej T are used in connection with our domestic wrappers. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours, HERBERT MYRICK, Agricultural Editor. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 507 No. I. The evasions of the tariff law by importers of Sumatra tobacco have already cost the Government several millions of dollars. The evasion is accomplished by a pecul- iar packing of the leaf. This practice is doubtless common with importers of other goods. It is almost impossible to frame a law that shall be iron clad. To guard against such fraud and provide for any fault of phraseology in any section, the tariff act of 1883 (section 7) contains this proviso : “ Provided, That if any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or coverings of any kind shall be of any material or form designed to evade duties thereon, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States, the same shall be subject to a duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem upon the actual value of the same.” This provision applies to coverings. Now suppose it could be amended by insert- ing after “ the United States ” this clause : “ or if the contents of any packages, sacks, crates, boxes, or bulks shall be packed or arranged in any manner or form designed to evade duties thereon.” This would prevent the extensive evasions which have been practiced in tobacco importation since 1883. Nor do we see how the proposed amendment can be objected to, as it merely provides in a general way for the enforce- ment of provisions already a part of the existing tariff law. The Homestead, Spring- Held, Mass . , December 19, 1885. No. 2. THE SUMATRA IMBROGLIO. The executive committee of the New England Tobacco Growers’ Association met in Hartford on Thursday last. Vice-President S. G. Hubbard, of Hatfield, Mass., and H. H. Austin, of Suffield, Conn., reported on their conference with the New York Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade. The board had adopted this draft of a tariff law : “ Sec. 2. Leaf tobacco of which 20 per cent, or more of one package is used for wrappers, and also when it is the product of different countries — packed together in one package — if not stemmed, $1.50 per pound ; if stemmed, $2 per pound, upon the whole contents of such package. “ Sec. 3. All other tobacco in leaf, unmanufactured and not stemmed, 20 cents per pound ; if stemmed, 25 cents per pound.” An analysis of this law shows that in practice it means a tariff of $1.05 per pound on unstemmed wrappers, and $1.16 on stemmed wrappers, and fillers free. The em- ployment of the term “used” may also permit evasion. The delegates could not recommend it, but submitted a draft, which, after thorough, practical, scientific, legal, and grammatical consideration, and several minor connections, was adopted in the following language : A. — “ Sec. 2. All tobacco in leaf (excepting fillers and filler grades), also all mixed bulks, bales, boxes, or packages of wrappers and other grades, if not stemmed, $1.50 per pound ; if stemmed, $2 per pound, upon the whole contents of each bulk, bale, box, or package. B. — “Sec. 3. All other tobacco in leaf, if not stemmed, 25 cents per pound; if stemmed, 30 cents per pound.” The more this law is studied the more acceptable it will be found to all interests. It contains no “ per cent, clause ” which would enable it to be so easily evaded. Fill- ers, not wrappers, are the pivot of this law. Every grade of leaf above the grades known to the trade as 1 1 fillers ” and “ filler grades ” will have to pay $1.50 per pound. Even if the packages contain a mixture of different grades it must all pay $1.50 per pound, if above the two grades specified. And this, too, without excluding the Ha- vana fillers and filler grades, the admission of which at the lower rate has been the obstacle in the way of an iron-clad law. Hence this draft will, I think, prove en- tirely acceptable to the trade and to manufacturers. It simplifies the whole matter, without conflicting with the Havana interests. All the appraiser has to decide is whether a bale or a number of bales are fillers or filler grades or not. If they are not, either in whole or in part, then the whole pays the higher rate. The law is plain, unequivocal, is “upon the whole contents,” covers mixed packages (whether of the same or different countries is not material), and serves the purpose sought without antagonizing the interest upon the thrift of which depends to a considerable degree the market and prices of our domestic wrappers. The strongest possible argument in favor of a revision of the tobacco tariff is found in the decision of the Falk case. In July, 1883, G. Falk & Bro. imported 1,400 bales of Sumatra leaf, and paid 75 cents p£r pound duty on it, protesting that it should be 508 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. admitted at the 35-cent rate. They sued the Government to recover the extra 40 cents per pound, amounting to $80,000. The case was tried in the United States circuit court at New York, last week, before Judge Hoyt G. Wheeler and a jury. Without tak- ing any other testimony than the plaintiff’s, the judge decided in their favor. The Gov- ernment may carry the case to the Supreme Court. This decision knocks the last peg from under the existing tariff. That law means 35 cents per pound duty in fact and in law, as it has proved in practice. It is said that the decision in this case will lead the Secretary of the Treasury to recommend Congress to so revise the tobacco schedule as to make it operative. This case going against the Government means a new tobacco tariff. A New York leaf-merchant, apropos of the new tobacco tariff, makes this good suggestion : To decide or define what is a filler and what is a wrapper, two respecta- ble tobacco merchants should be selected by our Government to assist the custom- house appraisers at every port where foreign tobacco enters. The appraisers, as well as the tobacco merchants, should be required to give sufficient security for the honest performance of their duty, and if found dishonest the bail or security should be forfeited. The tobacco growers of Lancaster, Berks, Chester, and York Counties, Pennsyl- vania, held a convention at Lancaster, Pa., Monday, December 14. The attend- ance was very large ; indeed it was the largest gathering of farmers ever held in the county. Jacob M. Frantz presided, and E. N. Phelps, president of the New Eng- land Tobacco Growers’ Association, spoke. The following resolution was passed : “ Resolved, That all leaf-tobacco contained in any package, bale, or box, or in bulk, any part of which is suitable for wrappers, if not stemmed, shall pay a duty of $1.50 per pound ; if stemmed, $2 per pound on the whole contents of such package, bale, or box, or bulk of tobacco.” A committee of twenty was appointed to draw up a bill according to the resolution, which will be presented to Congress as early as possible. [Sumatra tobacco.] Department of State, Washington , January 6, 1886. Sir : I have the honor to transmit to you herewith for your informa- tion and consideration a copy of a dispatch to this Department from Mr. Bell, our minister at The Hague, concerning a reported change in the mode of packing Sumatra tobacco, by which it is said the customs laws of this country are evaded. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, JAMES D. PORTER, Acting Secretary. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury. No. 82.] Legation of the United States, The Hague , , December 14, 1885. Sir : The growing trade between this country and the United States in Sumatra tobacco, at a time when other industries are tranquil, seems a question of so much im- portance to those connected with the culture of tobacco in the United States that I have thought it proper to invite your attention to certain features of the trade at a time when measures are likely to be considered by Congress regarding a change in the tobacco tariff. Tobacco growing or culture as an industry in Sumatra dates from 1865. There are no figures at hand to show to what extent it was cultivated between the years 1865 and 1876. During the year 1876 29,000 bales were grown in Sumatra. In 1883 the number of bales had increased to 100,000. The tobacco is brought from Sumatra to Amsterdam, where it is sold at public auc- tion at stated periods during the year. The following statement, according to the last consular record, shows the growth of the trade : REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 509 Sumatra tobacco exported from Amsterdam to the United States. Quarter ending — September, 30, 1883. . December 31, 1883. A. March 31, 1884 -June 30, 1884 Value. Quarter ending — Value. $5, 789 86 September 30, 1884 $415, 759 47 32, 720 26 Depember 31, 1884 713, 767 78 117, 625 06 March 31, 1885 290, 153 00 437, 541 88 June 30, 1885 547, 951 00 The two features to which I would invite your attention are — (1 ) The rapid growth of the trade. (2) The fact that an enterprising correspondent of a leading commercial journal of this country (Handelsblad) recently asserted, in a communication addressed to that journal, that the American Government “as we know have already commenced to place restrictive provisions upon the dimensions of the leaf, by which means Sumatra tobacco was indirectly struck. But it appears that our industry in Sumatra has al- ready found the means to escape from this effort to prejudice its interests by a pre- paration or a modified packing.” In other words this enterprising journalist openly asserts that there has been a systematic “nesting” process practiced in the packing of Sumatra tobacco with a view to evade the customs laws of the United States, and which, according to the cor- respondent’s statement, has proved successful. According to this statement, this change in the manner of packing was only made after the enactment of laws in the United States which fixed different duties on leaves of different dimensions. It has occurred to me that an examination of the packages of Sumatra tobacco re- ceived in the United States will show whether such a system of “nesting” actually exists. At all events the assertion seems to me to be of sufficient importance to bring it to the attention of the Department, so that you may take such steps as may seem proper. This systematic modification in the packing, which seems to date its origin from recent changes in our tobacco tariff, may be the principal cause of this great increase in the trade I have also heard it stated that leaves of certain dimensions, which are subject to a high rate of duty under our law, have been packed with leaves of smaller dimen- sions, which #re subject to a lower rate of duty, in such a manner as to subject the entire package to the payment of the low rate of duty. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, ISAAC BELL, Jr. Hon. Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State. [Henry Bischoff & Co., rice .] Charleston, S. C., October 19, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, /Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. C. : Sir : Your circular letter of September 2, addressed to us, and mak- ing inquiries as to the evasions of existing tariff laws on imported mer- chandise, and also desiring suggestions as to the revisions of existing tariff, came duly to hand. We highly appreciate the distinguished honor you have done us in selecting us as* parties to become exponents of these matters for our im- mediate part of the country, and we would have answered the letter sooner but found it necessary and proper to consult other persons of experience and interested in the business of which we now write. The rice culture and importation is the great branch of protected in- dustry which interests us particularly here, and after carefully submit- ting your circular letter of September 2 to many individuals, and some 510 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. public bodies, connected therewith, we now answer with the following replies and suggestions. And the information which we give you is derived from the practical knowledge and experience of ourselves and others as rice planters and merchants. In the first place, we will respectfully call your attention to the fol- lowing observations relating to the systematic evasion of the present protective tariff laws, which until recently was a great and threatening evil, and unless it had been checked would soon have nullified and rendered of no practical avail the governmental tariff protection. This injustice and wrong was accomplished by importations made under the guise of u granulated rice.” And the manner of accomplishing this evasion was twofold. First. The importers claimed that this was an unenumerated article and therefore dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem duty. But this is clearly error, as rice is an enumerated article and specially named and provided for. Heretofore, under the rulings of your Department, this u granulated rice ” has been admitted in very large quantities, and is used by the brew- ers of the country for brewing purposes. The Department, however, until 1883, required that such rice should be really what it purported to be, namely, a u granulated rice,” which had been subjected to a regular granulating process, which reduced it to small particles; and so long as this ruling was adhered to, the injury to the rice interests was not great as the rice imported under it was of an uniformly small, granulated, and broken character, fit for brewing and some few other purposes, but not dangerous to the rice interests for general marketable purposes. Secondly. The above ruling was taken advantage of and made use of for illegal purposes and to evade the entire spirit of the tariff. Bice, as is well known, becomes more or less broken in the usual milling process, and much of it, after milling, runs from one-quarter to seven-eighths grains. Construing the ruling as to u granulated rice” broadly, some one or more importers in New York urged that it covered all kinds of broken rice, and taking advantage of this improper application of the tariff law these parties had been importing rice which is to all intents and purposes the ordinary rice of commerce; and the officials in New York have allowed them, in this guise, to import at 20 per cent, ad valorem duty rice which is practically almost whole rice, and which has never been through any u additional granulating process” whatsoever. To substantiate this latter statement, we would refer you to the re- port of August 10, 1885, of U. S. Consul Albert Loening, in which he distinctly states that this so-called u granulated rice” is nothing more or less than broken rice made in the ordinary process of milling, and not subjected to any additional granulating process, as required by the previous ruling of the Department. This was the great evil threatening the rice interests of the country, but we hope that it has been effectually and finally removed by the cir- cular of November, 1885, which seems to us a very liberal construction of the law so far as it affects the interests of brewers and other im- porters. And we think it is also in rigid adherence to the spirit of the former rulings of the Department, namely, that the rice imported as u granulated rice” at 20 per cent, ad valorem duty must have been subjected to a regular additional granulating process, by which the grain has been reduced to an uniform small size, say a size similar to the smallest rice milled in the mills of this country, such as sample sent you marked u small rice.” REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 511 And in this connection we would suggest that such size be subjected to some seive test and standard, to be perfected and approved by the Department, after conference with the representatives of the rice in- terests. This would not interfere with the importation of the granulated rice for the brewers, which is perhaps legitimate and does not particularly interfere with the rice interests, but it would prevent all evasions of the law as to broken rice, by which the rice interests have been jeopar- dized and the tariff protection practically done away with. Secondly, with regard to tariff revision, we make the following sug- gestion, which we think experience in the rice business will justify and which will give the American rice-millers practical protection against their competitors in Great Britain, Germany, and Holland. For the purpose of making clear our views, and of acquainting you with the various forms which rice takes under the different processes of manufacturing, we send you samples of the various grades and shapes. They are, rough rice or paddy ; mill-ground rice, containing about 50 per cent, of rough or paddy ; mill-ground rice, containing about 25 per cent, of rough or paddy ; mill -ground rice, free from rough or paddy ; rice chaff ; rice pounded in pestle (or other machinery which answers the same purpose), with the rice flour; pounded rice sifted from the flour, but not polished ; whole or best grade rice, polished ; middling rice ; small rice ; rice meal or flour ; rice flour ; rice polish. Now, the rice, as it passes through the various manufacturing or im- proving processes, is supposed to increase in value, and the tariff is based upon this increase in value, and is supposed to fix rates of duty in proportion to the value of rice in its various states ; but, as a matter of fact, the rates on the various classifications under the existing tariff are not in the proper proportions, and do not, in all the grades, allow a proper difference of duty in due proportion to value. As an instance of this, we call to your attention the duty on rough rice, and then the duty on its products, to wit : 100 bushels of rough or unhulled rice equals 4,400 pounds (present duty 1£ cents) $55 00 Product of above after milling : 2,200 pounds cleaned whole rice, duty 2.25 $47 25 700 pounds broken rice, 20 per cent, ad valorem 2 80 500 pounds rice meal (no importation duty). 900 pounds chaff (no ad valorem duty). 200 pounds offal (no ad valorem duty). 50 05 In favor of foreign millers 4 95 Or, in other words, if the domestic miller desired to import the rough rice and prepare it for market, he would be placed at a disadvantage, as compared with the foreign mills, of nearly $5 per 100 bushels. Thus it is evident that the present tariff is so arranged that it dis- criminates fatally against any home milling of foreign rice, and accord- ingly causes all such rice .to be first carried to European ports to be milled, and* then reshipped to this country cleaned or partially cleaned. It takes no argument to show that this both strikes at our milling in- terests and also prevents that direct trade which should be of such com- manding importance to us. Any revision of the tariff should correct these evils, and in this line we suggest the following rates as calculated to effect the object desired : Cleaned rice (present tariff 2.25 cents per pound) , say 2.25. TJncleaned rice (present tariff 1 and 1.50 cents per pound) say 1.75. 512 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Paddy or rough rice (present duty 1 and 1.25 cents per pound) say 1. Under the present ruling, uncleaned rice embraces all mixtures of paddy or rough rice, and rice with the hull taken off. Now, rice is usu- ally shipped in this way from the East Indies, because it does not heat, and it is properly considered paddy or rough rice. That is, they mix the paddy or rough rice with the hulled rice in various proportions, running from 25 to 75 per cent, of the latter. Now, the mixture has to go again through the mill stones, and is really in the crude state, and therefore should not pay the present duty of 1 and 1.50 cents per pound as uncleaned rice, but should be classed, as in Europe, with the paddy or rough rice, and the tariff on it should vary, as it contains more or less rice free from hull. So that we should sug- gest the additional grades for duty : Paddy mixed with 25 per cent, hull rice.. 1. 10 Paddy mixed with 50 per cent, hull rice 1.20 Paddy mixed with 75 per cent, hull rice 1. 25 But of course these rates could be fixed after future careful and in- telligent comparison and thought. If these changes are made in the tariff the ad valorem duty on “ gran- ulated rice” might be abolished entirely, so that our own mills could import the rough rice and manufacture this product. But if it shall be deemed advisable to allow this import, then we suggest fixed duty in- stead of ad valorem duty, and name .50 per pound as a proper and ade- quate fixed duty on “granulated rice.” This is all that we at present feel authorized in suggesting to you except to urge upon you the im- portance of the rice interest, both from a labor and a manufacturing standpoint. Millions of dollars of capital are invested in this great in- dustry, and thousands of our rural colored laboring people are depend- ent upon it for a livelihood. Under this view of the matter we cannot do otherwise than to urge on you this due care of the matter, both by properly enforcing the laws at present, in the wisdom of the country, existing for its protection, and also by looking towards more intelligent shaping of such laws in the future. The duty on rice is made necessary by the existence of our present protective tariff, which makes' living dearer and thereby increases the money price of labor. There is no agricultural product of this country in the production of which the cost of labor enters so largely as it does in the production of rice. The labor on an acre of rice amounts to $25 a year, on the average, and the nature of the soil and character of the growth prevent the use of such machines as have been applied to the farming of other grains. If we had no protective tariff at all we think rice could take care of itself as it did before 1860, but the cost of producing it has been greatly enhanced by the changes that have occurred since that time. Our position in this matter is, that while we do not advocate protect- ive tariffs, still, as long as the policy of the United States is in favor their continuance, we deem it but just that the small portion ot the tariff laws in favor of the industries of our part of the country should be maintained and enforced. We prefer no tariffs at all, but if there are tariffs, then let us get our share of them. Apologizing for this intrusion on your time, but excusing it by the fact that you did us the honor to call on us, We remain, dear sir, your obedient servants, H. BISCHOFF & CO. Samples will he transmitted separatelg to Congress. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 513 [James S. Kirk & Co., soap, alkalies , alcohol, Chicago, December 12, 1885. Dear Sir : We beg to offer a few suggestions relating to the present rate of tariff on alkalies for fa vor of your consideration. We are probably the largest consumers of these products in America, and consequently need not apologize for a strong personal interest in their market value. But we would not presume to solicit aid from you for a purely selfish and personal end. The present duty on alkalies is unnecessary for many reasons. In the first place soap from America ought to be foremost in every foreign market on account of the peculiar facilities for its manufacture which are here enjoyed. The animal and vegetable fats can be ob- tained nowhere else in such quantities or with so much ease 5 the rosins which enter largely into the composition of soap, as well as many otter ingredients are here in profusion, and there is no known method of manufacture which cannot be employed here as well as in any part of the world. The fact remains that American manufacturers are shut out of foreign markets and chiefly because of the heavy duties on alkalies. Foreign makers do not suffer from the same disadvantage, and accord- ingly are in a position to offer their goods to their home consumers at prices which cannot be met on this side ; Another feature of the case is that* under present laws regulating these duties no home industry is protected, since practically all the caustic soda, soda ash, sal soda, &c., come from England. In this connection we may mention that alcohol is largely employed in the manufacture of transparent soaps as well as for many other prac- tical and useful purposes. Its immense value in the arts is well known. It seems to us that the duty on alcohol when thus employed in the arts and manufactures should not be the same as when the article is devoted to its ordinary uses. But however desirable a change would be from our standpoint, we do not assume to speak with so much confidence on this part of the subject. We are writing our State Representatives in Congress, requesting them to examine carefully into the facts with a view to urging legislation on the tariff laws so far as they affect the commodities mentioned, and we have ventured to express the hope that they will interest themselves in this matter during the present winter session. Very respectfully, yours, J. S. KIRK & CO. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of Treasury , Washington , D. G. [Lord & Higlat, shooks. ] Baltimore, December 11, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary Treasury: Dear Sir: We respectfully beg to call your attention to the great depression now existing in the foreign cooperage business of our coun- try, the larger portion of which is done with the island of Cuba. This business has in years past given employment to several thou- sand men in thirteen different States. S. Ex. 72 33 514 REPORT OF THE SECRETATY OF THE TREASURY. The States most interested are Virginia, West Virgina, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Maine. A few years ago there were annually exported from this country about 1,000,000 of hogshead shooks, 1,000,000 pairs heads, and 16,000,000 * of hoops to island of Cuba, but by the gradual substitution of English bags the quantity of shooks used had declined two years ago to about 750,000. This was brought about by the extreme low prices at which bags were offered by English manufacturers, and the low import duty into Cuba, being only 15 cents on 5 bags, against 45 cents on one hogs- head, but planters were very generally opposed to bags, and if no action had been taken by the Spanish Government, cooperage would have held its own and bags would soon gone out of use. Two years ago there was an unprecedented increase of sugar produc- tiqp all over the world, and the Cuban planters being in great distress financially, called on their Government for some relief, and one of tbe first measures of relief granted was a reduction of the export duty on sugar, when shipped in bags, duty on sugar in hogsheads remaining same as before, making a saving of about one-fourth cent per pound over what sugars could be shipped at in hogsheads. Under this new condition of things the consumption of hogsheads fell off last year to 5110,000, or just about half of former years, and hoops in the same ratio. The only reason why a larger proportion of bags were not used, it was impossible to at once change the mode of handling, transporting, storing, and shipping such a vast quantity in bags. By careful estimate the quantity of shooks to be used this year will not exceed 250,000, or half the number of last year, and unless some- thing is speedily done to prevent, the whole cooperage industry of our country will soon be destroyed. The value of cooperage formerly exported would exceed $3,000,000, and required about 300 vessels (one trip each) to carry it, at freightage of $334,000. If the cooperage business is destroyed, our West India fleet of vessels will be driven from the sea, as they will have no cargoes to carry out, and it will be impossible for them to go to Cuba in ballast and compete with the English u ocean steam tramps,” and in this event it will come to pass that England will furnish the packages and the freightage of the sugar and molasses produced by Cuba, and when the fact is well understood that about nine- tenths of all the sugar and molasses is brought to our country the seriousness of the situation will be better appreciated. As there seems to be no prospect of having a commercial treaty with Spain, our only redress is for our Government to reduce the present duty on sugar when imported in hogsheads about one-fourth cent per pound, the duty on sugar in bags to remain as at present, or to increase our present duty on sugar in bags. If reduced in hogsheads it cannot in any way affect other sugar-grow- ing countries, their sugar being shipped in bags, as the higher cost of hogsheads over bags is fully equal to reduction proposed. In other words, sugars in hogsheads or bags would then cost the same laid down in this country. We have another remedy which could be used by simply following the example of Spain in our country, and which, in our opinion, would speedily settle the matter in favor of our cooperage, and without dis- turbing our present tariff. Several years ago the Spanish Govern- ment instructed her consuls in all American ports to exact a fee, or REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 515 export duty, of 10 cents per ton of cargo shipped on board of American vessels, when cleared to West India islands, and this consul fee (or more properly export tax) has since been collected against the indig- nant protest of all American ship owners. If it is right for the Spanish Government to collect an export tax in our country, why should not our consuls in the Spanish islands be instructed to collect fees on bags sufficient, so that shippers would be obliged to use American hogsheads as formerly, instead of English bags, and by this means fully protect the cooperage and shipping interests, and as a matter of equity and right it would seem that some relief like the above should be granted from the fact that about nine-tenths of the sugar and molasses, as we mention above, of the Spanish West India islands come to this country, and formerly we could ship cooperage as part payment of same, while if no relief is granted we cannot ship cooperage to pay for their pro- ducts, but must furnish cash which goes to the English manufacturer of bags, this country thus losing about $3,000,000 per annum, besides throwing out of employment all the coopers engaged in the manufacture, the carrying trade for the vessels, the freights on our railroads, and the value of the timber lands, the class of timber used for cooperage be- ing of no use for other purposes. Thus it will be seen that it is of great importance that something be done to protect so large interests, while at the same time no parties in this country or other interest would suffer from such legislation. Trusting the above will have your attention, We remain, your obedient servants, LORD & HIGHT. [W. N. Fitzgerald, carriages and harness .] Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir: In response to your circular asking for information regarding our manufacturing industries, with a view to correcting abuses and re- moving obstructions which retard progress, permit me to state that I am not engaged in manufacturing, but for several years prior to 1869 I was interested in the carriage business, and since that time I have been conducting a trade journal devoted to the carriage and harness industries and their collateral branches, and have given much attention to matters of cost of production, wages of mechanics, profits as com- pared with capital, effects of foreign competition, and advantages of foreign markets, so far as these industries are concerned. The carriage and harness interests are so closely allied that they can be counted as one, and in none other is there a greater variety of ma- terials used, embracing timber, all kinds of metals, silk, wool, and worsted fabrics, leather (patent and plain), paints, oils, varnishes, &c., and in none other is the percentage of skilled workmen greater. The importance of this combined industry is best illustrated by the fact that of the three hundred and thirty manufacturing industries as classified by the census reports, it represents about one-tenth the num- ber of establishments, one-twentieth the number of male employes over 16 years of age, and one-thirtieth the aggregate value of the products ; an industry therefore that is so large and varied must of necessity be interested in all laws that influence cost, effect wages, contribute to encourage production, or operate toward securing markets. The tariff law as it now stands is satisfactory to the carriage trade, 516 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. so far as it applies to the finished vehicle, as competition from abroad is confined in great part to the high grade of vehicles. Prior to the action of the Carriage Builders’ National Association, November 20, 1873, undervaluation was common, but since then the evi] has been lessened, and little trouble is experienced except from importation by travelers who purchase vehicles abroad and succeed in bringing them in as sec- ond-hand, or as personal effects. Very few dealers import carriages, as the cost in England and France — the only countries where styles are produced that will sell in our markets — together with duties, transpor- tation, &c., makes the prices higher than those of like grade of home manufacture. The American carriage builders are satisfied with ad valorem duties, believing that if enforced as they should be against importations by summer travelers, no further protection would be nec- essary ; but they are opposed to a change from an ad valorem to a spe- cific duty, as that would totally exclude medium grades or admit the fine vehicles at rates that would materially affect home production. To illustrate : The landau ranges in price from $1,000 to $1,800 iu England and $900 to $1,200 in France, the general character of the specific grades being the same. The present ad valorem duty on the first cost of the vehicles would be, English, $1,350 and $2,430; French, $1,215 and $1,020. A specific duty of $630 on the $1,800 vehicle would be equivalent to the present ad valorem duty, but if that specific duty was imposed upon the $900 vehicle it would be equivalent to taxing the low-priced vehicle 70 per cent. If, on the other hand, the specific duty was based upon the present ad valorem duty upon the low-priced vehi- cle, the $1,800 carriage could be imported on the payment of a duty equivalent to about 15 per cent, ad valorem, a rate that would encour- age importation and operate injuriously if not fatally to our fine carriage trade, unless duties of all kinds are removed from materials of every description used by carriage builders. The harness department is differently situated than the carriage, and suffers more from undervaluation. There is no proper classification ; under the general head of “saddlery,” harness full trimmed or without trimmings, riding saddles, bits, stirrups, mountings, &c., are admitted, while the same goods, except when complete in themselves, are admitted as manufactures of leather or hardware, the ad valorem duty on all classes being alike, but by the divisions and conditions under which they are imported undervaluation is an easy matter. A specific duty would tend to aggravate rather than correct the evil, owing to the great range in prices of articles of similar form and finish, which will vary in price from 30 cents to $4 each, the same percentage of difference run- ning through the entire line. The first step to placing this branch on a proper basis is the proper classification of the goods, the separating of harness from riding saddles and metallic from leather goods. I am uuable to convince myself that a change from the ad valorem to a specific duty would be beneficial, and in view of the present situa- tion of business I am adverse to making changes of any kind in the duties on most manufactured goods, but favor a change as regards raw materials, placing. them as far as possible on the free list, and where that cannot be done reducing rates to the lowest possible figure. It is little short of a crime that our manufacturers are compelled to pay more for American copper in >>ew York than the English manufacturer does for American copper in London, while our output of copper is well on to one and one half million pounds a month more than we can consume. There should be no duty on copper, lead, or tin. So, too, with wood screws, a manufactured article, the product of which is REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 517 but one-half the capital invested, out of which dividends of 20 per cent, and upwards have been paid upon the grossly excessive capital, the high duties making it impossible to import screws in competition. The duties on wood screws should be abolished, or at least reduced to 10 per cent. Worsted goods, particularly webs, are another of the excrescences that should be removed from the tariff*. The saddler, who wishes these webs, is compelled to pay a tax of 50 cents a pound, 50 per cent, ad valorem, but he can purchase saddle-girths made up of this web, com- pletely fitted up with buckles and straps, in England and import them by the payment of a duty of 35 per cent, which will enable him to lay down the finished girth in this country at less cost than the same amount of web uncut. Saddle-cloths of felt, uncut, come under the same head, 50 cents a pound, and 50 per cent, ad valorem, but if cut and made up the tariff is 35 per cent ; so that a made up saddle cloth of felt costs less to import than the feit for the same in the piece. Cor- rection of abuses of this character are more important than a wholesale revision of the tariff. I believe that undervaluation is due less to defects in the law than in the manner of its enforcement. The trouble begins with the original invoices. If the consuls who attest these were thoroughly competent men, who possessed the ability to judge qualities and the courage to enforce their opinions, they could do much toward checking the evil. I have had some experience with invoices, also with custom-house ap- praisers, and I am persuaded that more articles that are undervalued pass inspection through the incompetency of officials than through dis- honesty on their part. It may not be within the province of this paper to refer to consuls, but so much of the undervaluation is due to their lack of knowledge of values that it seems necessary to refer to them. A man may be a competent accountant, merchant, or manufacturer, yet be incompetent as a consul when called upon to decide as to values. To determine values requires a general knowledge of the cost of pro- duction and quality of materials, a knowledge that can be obtained only by years of close application to the technics of special industries. Then, too, a man might be competent as consul at Belfast because of his knowledge of textile fabrics, and incompetent at Manchester or Bir- mingham, where metals are the leading exports. The difference in interest on capital is no inconsiderable sum as com- pared with that paid in other countries ; particularly so in industries like carriage making, where, as is the case with fine heavy vehicles, five to six months are required in which to build them, and a sum not less than $500 is lying idle during that time the work is in progress. The question of wages is one that is agitated more than any other, and one that is the least understood. The opinion prevails to a great extent that the cost of labor here is the chief element in the regulation of prices. This feeling has been intensified by the statements of Amer- ican consuls as published by the State Department; the greater num- ber of these statements are false as a whole, or the conditions under which wages were earned were withheld; in either case the impression left by them was equally false. The European workman is surrounded by conditions entirely un- known to workmen in this country. His methods differ and the one great hope of future betterment is wanting. He works slowly and lives poorly, being trained to do as his father did before him and to be content with his lot. Remove him to this country pay him the same wages, piece-work, that he received abroad, and in a short time his earn- 518 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ings will double because of the increase in the amount of work per- formed. Speaking for the carriage trade, I know that there is a great deal of ignorance as to the labor cost in Europe and America. The landau, brougham, and victoria are vehicles that are almost identical here and elsewhere, and the prices paid for making become legitimate as a basis for comparison. The London prices are : L ami a u, leather top £17 Landau, glass front 20 Brougham - 15 Victoria 10 Paris prices : Francs. Landau, leather top - 211 Landau, glass front - 300 Brougham 200 Victoria 117 Xew York prices: Laudau, leather top .* $85 Landau, glass front 100 Brougham 80 Victoria 50 There is an apparent difference in favor of Paris, but this is due mainly to the manner of working. In Paris the w T oodworkman does not iron any portion of the body, not even hanging the doors, while in America and England all irons necessary to fit up the body are put on by the woodworker. Add to the Paris prices the cost of putting on these irons, and there would be very little difference in the actual cost of making the body. The output of factories furnish us with another illustration of the difference in the productive power of labor in this country and in Eu- rope. The result reached after a careful series of comparisons, cover- ing the experience of five years, shows that in the carriage business 75 men in this country produce as much in one year as 100 men in Eng- land and 115 men in Paris. In this comparison the wholesale estab- lishments in this country where machinery is largely employed are omitted. If, therefore, the same piece-work prices are paid in each coun- try the wages earned by the 75 men in this country would have to be divided up between 100 in England and 115 in Paris. The difference in wages, therefore, being so slight, it may be asked, why is there so great a difference in the value of the finished vehicle? My answer is, first, the increased cost owing to difference in the rate of interest; sec- ondly, the greatly increased office and factory expenses, grouped under the head of nonproductive labor; thirdly, the increased cost of mate- rials, averaging about 50 per cent. The cost of the fine cloth used in trimming a landau is, in this country, about $90; the same make of cloth costs the European manufacturer, the quantity used being the same, about $45. Carriage silks, laces, fringes, bullions, plate-glass, &c., cost from 35 to 45 per cent, more here than abroad. All the finest carriage cloths are imported ; the wools used in their manufacture are not grown in our country, and the heavy duty imposed makes it impossible to use them in competition with manu- facturers of cloths who obtain them free of duty. In preparing a tariff, two points should be considered. Ofie the effect upon our home trade, the other the effect upon our exports. If the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 519 American carriage manufacturer is compelled to pay even so much as 25 per cent, more for his materials than the foreign competitor, he is necessarily placed at a great disadvantage. That he does, and that the value of our carriage exports is so great, being 1,347 vehicles in the year ending December 1, 1885, valued at $237,648, is due to the fact that the productive power of a given amount of capital is so much greater here than it is abroad, and to the genius of our craftsmen in keeping well in advance in styles, &c. The lack of transportation is a serious drawback, and it does not speak much for the enterprise of our countrymen when, in order to ship a car- riage to South Africa, to parts of South America, and to Australia, they must first ship them to some English or Dutch port and then re- ship to destination. The large trade built up is due to personal solici- tation, it being impossible for our manufacturers to obtain positive in- formation as to the wants of communities. No branch of industry has been more united in their efforts to learn the wants of foreign nations than the carriage. At their convention in 1883 they adopted a resolu- tion instructing the secretary to correspond with American consuls, which instruction was carried out, and a number of replies received, a copy of which I have the honor to transmit herewith. Several of these replies are valuable, but the majority show a lack of information on the part of the consuls, while the large number who failed to reply to the secretary’s letter indicates a wonderful indifference to the interest of our manufacturers, an indifference that is maintained even toward busi- ness men who are entitled to some attention when visiting a distant country. With our present facilities for manufacturing we can more than sup- ply th&home demand, and unless a foreign trade can be secured there can be no stability to trade. Neither a high tariff nor free trade will avail. We must find markets for our surplus, as the surplus will in- crease as wages decrease. As a nation we have consumed close up to our production, because of the ability of our working classes to pur- chase. With that power curtailed overproduction will be an easy matter; but with consumers who do not produce sufficient to absorb one-fourth our output there would be greater stability in wages and consequently greater prosperity among our workers. I have no sympathy with the idea, so much talked of, that a pro- tective tariff is a necessity in order to secure good wages to workmen. The time was when this had weight, but with Europe’s population within ten days’ call there will always be enough labor at command to make a material advance in wages impossible. Then, too, experience proves that a high tariff* does not advance wages. The makers of wood- screws, though their product is protected to an extent that makes for- eign competition impossible, earn on an average less than $350 a year. House hardware is protected to the extent of 35 per cent, yet the work- men average but $325 a year. Saddlery hardware, with its 35 per cent, protection, pays its workmen about $350 per year. The bricklayer and carpenter have no tariff to protect them, yet their wages will average about $600. The same singular feature is observable through the en- tire line of our industries — where the tariff is the highest wages are the lowest, not necessarily because of a high tariff, but simply because other causes are more potent. We are rapidly drifting into the channels followed by workmen in other countries. Trade organizations are multiplying. The working- classes feel that they are being crowded to the wall, and unless acting in concert they must eventually submit to lower wages. This movement 520 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. will keep off the evil day for a time ; bat every man who joins one of these organizations sinks his individuality and sells his birthright to a major- ity of his associates. 'Legislation can arrest this movement by the en- actment of tariff laws that will enable us to compete in the world’s markets and by commercial treaties that will encourage our shipping industries, and make it possible to deliver American goods to any part of the world in American bottoms. Yours, respectfully, WM. N. FITZGERALD. Note. — Printed inclosures will be separately transmitted to Congress. [Leslie Iron Works, steel blooms .] Jersey City, N. J., December 1, 1885. His Excellency President Cleveland : Dear Sir : Before the last Presidential election there was great ex- citement about this tariff question, that there has been so much trickery carried on of late years during the term of the Republican party. Dur- ing the darkest days of the rebellion, when the Government was sorely pushed for money, the greatest duty they ever charged w r as 45 per cent, on steel blooms. Those steel blooms are-used for making tires for loco- motive driving-wheels and car-wheels. They are actually raw material. Three mills in this country combined about three years ago and had the duty raised on those steel blooms from 45 to 90 per cent. Now those same three mills charge an extortionate price for their steel tires. By their trickery they have got the whip in their own hands, and make every man, woman, and child that travels on a railroad pay into their pockets money. The duty on those steel blooms ought to be brought back to the old price — 45 per cent. It is strange that three mills should combine and carry an important matter of this kind and fill their own pockets at the expense of the people. Those three mills are as follows : Nashua Steel and Iron Company, Nashua, N. H. ; Standard Steel Tire Works, at Lewistown, Pa. ; Midvale Steel and Tire Works, Nicetown, Pa. Those are the three mills that are swindling the public. There is one other small mill in Chicago, named the Chicago Tire and Spring Works. They started up a few years ago, making steel tires, and bought frheir blooms in Sheffield, England, and paid the Government 45 per cent, duty on all the material they used. By the trickery of those three other mills having the duty raised from 45 to 90 per cent, they have actually ruined this mill in Chicago and nearty bankrupted the owners. I hope you will investigate this matter and have the duty brought back to the old standard — 45 per cent. The Government asked no more than this in its darkest days, when it was very hard to tell which would be which. * * * Yours, respectfully, HUGH LESLIE. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 521 [Andrea-Jocliams, iron and glass.] Charleroi, Belgium, December 1 , 1885. The Hon. Secretary of the Treasury, Washington: Sir: If it can be of any use to yon, I send you some information proving that on iron and glass the present duty in your country repre- sents more than 100 per cent, of the value of these goods manufactured in Belgium and delivered f. o. b. Antwerp. Iron beams and channels— The Iron Age, of 19th November last, indi- cates price of American beams and channels as 3 cents a pound, free from dock, in New York. The duty on beams and channels is 1J cents per pound. We have still $2.50 freight per ton from Antwerp to New York, and one-half per cent, sea insurance. However, though all raw materials and wages are high in Belgium as in America, we can sell iron beams and channels at 2-^ cents per pound, cost, freight, insurance, and duty included, New York. The quality of our iron beams and chan- nels and tensile strength are good, equal to best American goods. Window glass , or you call “common cylinder glass.” — One of our in- voices for glass sent to United States America, calculated, declared f. o. b. Antwerp, represents, for instance, 100. When you acid the pres- ent duty for glass in United States of America, the value, cost, insurance, and freight, New York, duty included, is exactly 215. However, coal, soda, all raw materials, and wages are higher paid here than in America. We must conclude here in Europe, either American manufacturers must make immense profits, paid by your 60,000,000 inhabitants, duty doubling the value of same goods here, or they will never have techni- cal science for producing manufactured goods retailed here at a reason- able cost price. I remain, sir, yours, most respectfullv, ANDBES-JOCHAMS, Secretary of the two largest Iron and Glass Works in Belgium. (J. B. Sargent and others, iron and steel.) The iron duties . — A review of the letter of the American Iron and Steel Association , November 10, 1885. December 21, 1885. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : The undersigned, who are directly connected with the metal and hardware industries and who are in relation also with organiza- tions looking to the reform of our present revenue system, have noted the letter addressed to you from the American Iron and Steel Associa- tion under date of November 10, 1885, and since made public in pam- phlet form, as a reply to the inquiries of your circular letter of July 17, 1885. The fact that the American Iron and Steel Association is the leading protectionist organization in this country, and that Mr. Swank, its general manager — doubtless the author of this report — is one of the leading advocates of the protective system, justifies us, we believe, in considering this as an authoritative reply from the protectionist body 522 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. to your circular, aud the last word from the “ protection” side, and we therefore feel justified in asking your attention to some review of that letter from the standpoint of practical business interests. The letter confesses at the outset that it has been practicable to obtain the de- sired information from less than a quarter of the 270 members of the association and the other iron and steel manufacturers addressed, mak- ing 550 in all. As these business interests are always asking the peo- ple of the United States to pay higher prices for metal goods in order that their interests may be “protected,” it would seem only fair that they should be willing to justify their action by freely stating the evi- dence on which they base their claims. W e beg to point out also that the letter is not at all a reply, but prac tically an evasion of the real question put in your letter. Instead of specific information from w 7 hich conclusions could be determined by the Department and the public, the reply furnishes generalizations, infer- ences and tabulated figures, which cannot be accepted as an exact state- ment of generally true facts. Instead of replies as to the u feasibility of simplifying the tariff and making the duties specific” there is a gen- eral dissertation devoted to defending the present system and incident- ally asking for higher duties. So far as the question of specific duties is discussed the letter is simply a demand for higher rates of taxation. We beg to point out incidentally that the letter gives practical confir- mation to the objections to specific duties, that they have the disad- vantage of increasing disproportionately the cost of articles used by the great body of the people, and of increasing the rate of tax as goods in the natural course of invention and civilization become cheaper, so that the average rate on dutiable merchandise, which was, under the pre- vious tariff, 42§ per cent., and in the first year of 1883, 41§ percent., is reported by the Treasury abstract of 1884-1885 as 46 per cent, during the past year. The association candidly states that u the cheapness of foreign products is the feature of foreign competition against which protective duties are required,” and points out, in relation to 1884, that “ low prices had the effect of advancing the ad valorem equivalents of specific duties.” Revenue reformers hold that when the progress of in- dustrial development or the bouuty of nature makes goods cheap, the American people should not be deprived of the advantages shared by the rest of the world. The proposition of the association to tax the South an additional half million dollars on its cotton crop, by increas- ing the duty on cotton ties, and to further restrict the great tinware industry, by doubling the duty on tin plates, are discussed more fully in memoranda accompanying this reply. The advocates of protection have, nevertheless, become uneasy at the growing feeling of restiveness amongst consumers at paying high prices for the sake of the blessings of a protective tariff ; and so we find the Iron and Steel Association falling in with the current to claim that the result of the protective policy is an ultimate cheapening of goods. But the table of protective prices (p. 22), which is relied upon to show this is, as a matter of fact, for eleven years — 1874-1885 — of dull trade, barring about fourteen months in 187t)-’80, during which prices were naturally lower than they would have been under ordinary conditions, aud relatively lower with us than anywhere else in the world, because we were choked up with our surplus, which the indirect effects of the high tariff prevented us from sending abroad. We are willing to accept the comparison, however; and, using only one col- umn., that for pig-iron (the basis of the whole business, whose tiuctua- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 523 tions govern those of iron and steel in every shape), we will place these results alongside of the average price of Scotch iron during the same periods, as follows : American iron. Scotch iron. 1846 to 1860 average under low tariff $26i 23 8 . 58 54 1874 to 1885, average under high, tariff Difference 3£=120/ 0 | 4=7% This means that (as common sense would suggest) pig-iron is every- where made more cheaply now than thiity years ago, by reason of im- provement in processes, and that we have had our share of this reduc- tion in cost. On a par with the above claim is the passing assertion on the next page that “ protection alone had made possible cheap steel rails.” This statement in a serious paper is unpardonable. Of course the writer knew that foreigners had availed themselves of the discover- ies of science to reduce the cost of rails even more than ourselves, and that when our Bessemer monopolies were exacting $50 a ton the cus- tomers of English mills were bei’ug supplied at $30. When our home demand fell off to one-third of the productive capacity, and the mills, restricted by the tariff on pig-iron to a domestic market, recklessly com- peted with each other for the scanty custom left, prices fell as low as $25.50. And this is the only way in which prices can be reduced to a reasonable basis under a protective tariff. Instead of being steadily regulated by the free movement of trade to a fair margin of profit we must wait until commercial depression begins to glut our market w ith an unsalable stock, produced at such an artificially high cost that it cannot be exported, but stands in the way to cripple fresh produc- tion and increase the stagnation. It was so with pig-iron in 1878, wdien great piles of accumulated stock were pressing on the market on every hand, and it has been so again to a less extent in 1885. But must we have this protective tariff, with all its stifling influence, to enable us to produce iron at all? Some of the reasons given to sup- port this view we may put aside without discussion, such as the un- doubted fact that plant depreciates through use, and is antiquated by inventions. This is common to ourselves and the whole world. Of lit- tle more force is the startling announcement that pig-iron has recently been shipped from Glasgow to New York for two shillings and less, when the rail freight from the Lehigh Valley was $1 per ton. When importations are at the rate of 2,000 or 3,000 tons a month, the steam- ship lines are willing to take pig-iron or ore at very low figures, for use as ballast, and it might have been stated that rates have been as low as Is., and even free. But these exceptions prove little. Every dealer will recall 1879, when 10s. was an ordinary figure ; and it is quite pos- sible that shipments of one-half the quantity that comes by rail from Pennsylvania to New 7 York would advance the freight charge to some- thing like 20s., and so give us a natural u protection” of about $4 a ton. Within the past few weeks the demand for ship room to bring a few r thousand tons of Bessemer pig (imported at a higher cost than the domestic iron, because of superior quality) has caused an advance in freight rates to 8s. a ton, which is nearly double the advance in price of pig iron here. The ruling rate is, in fact, about 8s. per ton, as is shown by the contract rate for several cargoes of foreign ore now in 524 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. transit for delivery at Baltimore at this quotation, the rate for ore or for pig-iron ruling about the same. is or need we even consider very seriously the question of higher labor for any of the more finished products ; for apart from the fact that none of our workmen except the puddlers and nailers are paid much higher wages than the same men abroad (a difference in great measure neutralized by the higher cost for no better living), the market values of the raw material and the manufactured product in England and America show that the cost of converting pig-iron into bars and rails is about the same here as across the water, thus : In America. In England. Mfidinm har-irnn aaIIa at. Per ton. $35 84 15 00 £s. 6 0 = $29 10 2 8= 11 64 Grey Forge pig-iron sells at Convp.rtin fr pic into liars : _ _ 20 84 17 46 Steel rails sell at 34 00 5 1 = 24 50 2 2 = 10 20 Bessemer pig-iron sells at 20 50 Converting pig into rails 13 50 14 30 The English quotations on bar are for South Staffordshire bar of the quality usually marketed in this country alongside our medium bar, and for pig of corresponding quality. The great difference in price is in pig-iron, the foundation of the en- tire industry, and here it will prove useful to dissect the table given on page 15, showing average cost during three years from a number of furnaces, of which it is candidly stated that “only a few are among the newest and best equipped.” As it is also stated on page 2 that the re- ports are from less than one-fourth of the whole association, and the total cost given is remarkably high, it is a fair conclusion that almost none of the furnaces working most cheaply have reported. Such as it is, the table is as follows (omitting charcoal iron, which is unimportant in the discussion) : Labor in producing raw materials $10 26 Labor in transporting raw materials 1 78 Labor at furnace, including repairs 1 91 Total cost of labor 13 95 Taxes, insurance, commissions, office expenses, interest, freight, traveling ex- penses, royalties, &c *. 5 22 Total cost of a ton of pig-iron 19 17 Percentage of labor cost to total cost 73 The effort here is to sustain the theory that pig-iron is all labor, but nothing can excuse such a deliberate perversion of fact as is contained in these few figures. The entire cost of raw material — made up appar- ently of 2 tons ore, at $3.50 ; 1 h tonsof coal, at $1.60 ; and 1 ton of lime- stone, at 75 cents — is miscalled u labor.” What becomes of the royalty of 25 cents to $1 a ton, and the profits of the ore companies? Accord- ing to the census of 1880, when wages were much higher, the actual wages paid for mining this ore were $2.81, and for the coal $1.22. Add- ing 40 cents wages paid for quarrying limestone, we get the total u labor REVISION OF THE TARIFF. \ r> 25 for producing raw material ” as $4.43 to 1 ton of pig iron, instead of $10.26, as in the table. In like manner the association puts down to “labor” all the freight money paid out. Just how much of this is re- ceived by the railroad employes it is of course impossible to say; but here is the opinion ou the subject of the Iron Age, whose fealty to the protective policy no one will doubt, in a leading article published March 12, 1885 : We know of furnaces in the Lehigh Valley whose iron is shipped to tidewater for less than 70 cents a ton. Such reductions of course afford some relief, but they do not strike at the root of the evils of which many furnaces in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and else- where complain. It is the freight on the raw materials which is the most telling factor, and which is rendered so light to Alabama producers by proximity to eoaland ore. It is estimated by excellent authority that the actual cost of carrying coal — the cheapest freight to handle — is not more than one fourth cent per mile on leading roads for long hauls, and that one-half cent per mile is certainly a fair allowance for short hauls on trunk lines. Making due allowance for the fact that much ore and coal are carried over railroads with little traffic as compared with trunk lines, and that with them the cost may be double, it will be fully understood by manufacturers of pig-iron in the North and West that in the majority of cases there is room for a con- siderable reduction without asking the railroads to abandon a fair profit. If this estimate is correct, the u labor for transporting raw material” ought not to be put down at over 40 cents in most cases. The item of 64 labor at furnace” is fairly reasonable, but an allowance of $5.22, or 25 per cent., for et ceteras would indicate a most extravagant business, and is $2 more than the highest estimate that has ever been made, even in- cluding that drawn up by Mr. J. C. Bayles, with the express intention of proving that the estimates of cost in the South had been placed too low. Bemodeling our table by the new light we have found, it will read (taking economic cost in the country at large) as follows : Labor of mining iron ore $2 81 Labor of mining coal 1 22 Labor of mining limestone 40 Labor in transportation 40 Labor at furnace and repairs 1 91 Total labor 6 74 Ordinary allowance of et ceteras 3 00 Actual economic cost 9 74 Or, bringing et ceteras up to the Association’s statement 11 96 To get the Association’s result we are obliged to add: Royalties on ore and profit of ore mining companies $4 19 Royalties on coal and profit of coal mining companies 1 29 Profit on limestone 35 Profit of transportation companies , 1 38 Total cost 19 17 Percentage to labor 354 Percentage to railroad 7% Percentage to mine owners 30f The cost of making pig-iron at Middlesboro, England, wherefree com- petition has forced on mining companies moderate profits, averages $8.81 per ton, of which $7.17 is represented by the raw material used ; so that it is plain that the higher cost in this country is caused almost wholly by 526 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. the rack-rent paid to mine owners and to railroads carrying raw materials ; and that these two classes are the real beneficiaries of the excessive tariff that, starting with pig as the basis, raises the values of iron and steel pro- ducts to so high a level that we are shut out from the trade of the world. If, to the actual labor paid for mining the raw material, as given posi- tively by the census — $1.35 per ton, of ore, which the statistics of Mr. 8 wank tell us averages 55 per cent, metallic iron, and 79 cents per ton of coal, of which one and one-half tons are used to smelt a ton of pig — and to the labor of transportation, as estimated by the protec- tionist Iron Age, we add a profit of 20 per cent., the expenses at the furnace itself, and the sundry charges, we find that the real cost of the pig will vary from $10.50 to $13, according as the business is conducted under economic management and with improved plant, or the reverse. This exactly agrees with what is known of the cost of producing by such companies as the Thomas, Colebrook, or Cornwall of Pennsyl- vania, which mine their own ore, but buy and transport coal at high- tariff rates ; by the Virginia furnaces, which buy ore comparatively cheap, because there are few of them in relation to the neighboring supply of raw material, and by the furnaces in Alabama and Tennessee, which have the advantage of ore and coal lying side by side, as well as that of being as yet in a position to dictate terms to the land barons who own the mines, even where they must buy their material, instead of digging it on their own property. Both conditions of ownership of mines and proximity of fuel to ore are combined in the case of certain furnaces in the Hocking Valley, Ohio, which it is now said can make iron at a cost of $10 a ton. The one reason, then, why we cannot produce pig-iron — and conse- quently bars, and nails, and plates, and sheets, andsteel rails — as cheaply as abroad, is that it must pay an exorbitant rent to the fortunate pos- sessors of natural advantages ; and the worst of it is, that the greater the development of our iron industries the higher will become the pro- portion that goes to rent, and the narrower the margin to the furnace- man who must buy his material. Mills and furnaces may be multiplied indefinitely, but mining properties are the gift of nature (which in some other countries — as Germany, which charges for their use a royalty not exceeding 2 per cent, on price per ton — belong to the State, just as gold mines do in New York), and no efforts of man can add to their number. Ore is a bulky commodity, which cannot profitably be brought from a great distance, unless very rich in metallic iron, or having special qual- ities that make it specially desirable, but on the other hand must be disposed of near where it is produced or not at all. Our importations of ore have been but about 500,000 tons per year, and if we had to import the 9,000,000 tons we need for consumption, there would not be vessels enough to carry it, and freight rates would be prohibitive. Therefore while the furnaces in a given district are few in comparison to the supply of ore and fuel at hand, the prices at which these sell will be low in comparison with the prices of pig ; but in proportion as the furnaces increase in number the margin of profit to the furnace-man will diminish and that to the mine-owner will grow. This has been the progress of events in Pennsylvania, and it will be the same in the South, unless our tariff is reformed. The manufacturer will get a high price for his goods, because foreign competition is shut out, but he will be no better off if he must pay all the advance for raw material, and when dull trade comes he can find no market for the surplus which this country will not take, because his masters, the mo- REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 527 nopolists, who own the land and the railways, forbid him to manu- facture cheaply enough to meet a foreign demaud. The association, in stating that “ it does not approve of the unofficial suggestion that there should be a general revision of the tariff,” states that “ our present tariff is a new tariff, less than three years old, and we know of no good reason why it should be revised, as is proposed, from beginning to end.” But it holds that it should be corrected in detail “ so as to secure needed protection,” that is to say, so as to increase the duty on certain articles. The proposition of revenue reformers at the present time is that the more onerous burdens of the present tariff should be obviated by particular steps of revenue reform rather than by a general revision ; but now, as always, the protectionists object to any re- duction whatever of duties as “tariff tinkering,” although an increase of duties meets their entire approval at any time. The so-called new tariff of 1883 was subsequent to the recommendation of the Republican Tariff Commission that in the interest of our manufacturers there should be a general reduction of 20 per cent. As a matter of fact, the average duty on dutiable goods which was in 1881-’82, 42.66, and in 1882- ? 83, 42.45, was reduced in 1883-’84 to only 41.61, but with the fall of prices during the year past, according to the report of the Treasury Department, has in- creased again to 46.07. The Tariff Commission, which included Henry L. Oliver and Robert P. Porter, said specifically in regard to the iron and steel duties : “ The country and trade have outgrown the legislation of eighteen years ago. New processes, new terms, new articles are now in existence; and in no part of the tariff law is revision more necessary than in this schedule.” Yet the duty on iron and steel, which averaged in 1883 slightly over 40 per cent., was reduced by that tariff to an aver- age (tin-plates excluded) of only 39.69 in the first fiscal year after the new tariff, 1883-*84, and is again, 1884-85, over 40 per cent. By that same revision the duty on ore, previously 20 per cent., equaling 52 cents per ton on the average price of 1882-’83, was raised to 75 cents, and the duty on pig-iron was decreased only 5 per cent., or from $7 to $6.72 per ton. As the revision was nominally to promote reduction, it will be seen that it has failed entirely of its purpose, and the protectionists are virtually estopped from asking the continuance of what was an outrage on the American people. There is less insistence than usual in the present utterance of the Association on the labor question. In view of the notorious facts as to the condition of labor in the mining, iron and steel manufacturing in- dustries, this was perhaps wise, but we cannot refrain from pointing out some significant facts in this direction. The Association in deprecat- ing a reopening of the tariff question at the present time emphasizes the fact that the industries of this country have shared in a “protracted period of depression brought about by world-wide causes and common to all manufacturing countries.” It is evident to careful and candid observers that no nostrum, whether the most extreme protection or ab- solute tree trade, can prevent altogether the ups and downs which are a part of the imperfect constitution of human kind. But all experience shows that a high tariff increases, while a system of freedom mitigates, the results of these varations. Accordingly we find that while in Great Britain 417 furnaces out of 888 were in blast, or about a half, in the United States only 233 furnaces out of 670 were in blast. There is no industry which is more the pet and beneficiary of protection than that of mining and making iron and steel. There has been no industry in which half time, wage reduction, strikes, and riots have been so disas- 528 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. trous and so distressing. The figures of the census show that in the year 1879 to 1880 the total wages of $9,538,117 paid for mining iron ore, distributed among 31,668 men and boys, averaged but $301 per working year each, or counting the labor of two boys equal to one man, $309 per year each, or less than $1 for each working day. Since that time wages have been again and again reduced. It is a notorious fact that men are working in the mines at 80 cents a day and less, and it is even said that protectionist employers are paying as little as 60 and 50 cents a day for unskilled labor. The difficulties in the Hocking Valley are still fresh in the memory of the people, and again and again protected employers, when their hands have objected to a reduction, have brought in foreign labor to oust Amer ican workingmen. In some branches of the iron in- dustry the tariff per ton is actually higher than the price paid per ton for labor. These facts throw a strange light on the assertion of the As- sociation that in foreign countries “ labor is more at the mercy of capi- tal.” It is further shown by the returns of European countries that wages of European iron operatives are highest in free-trade England, and descend through France, Germany, and Russia, in a scale that is fairly in inverse proportion to the tariff rates, which, moderate in France, are highest of all in Russia. These facts suggest how baseless is the cry that the tariff is needed to protect American labor. On the contrary, what American labor needs is steadier work and more of it, which can only be had bj T freeing from duty those articles which are at the foundation of great industries and so increasing the possibility of our sales and therefore of returns to our labor by enabling us to complete successfully with England in the markets of the world. The cry is as baseless as that made during the last political campaign at the time when the gentleman who, as Pres- ident of the American Iron and Steel Association, heads the signatures to its report, was most prominent in opposition to the party and the candidate which the election put in power. It was then prophesied that a change of administration was not possible in this country with- out the most disastrous financial, commercial, and industrial results. The falsity of this assertion was demonstrated in advance by the fact that, after years of protection, reductions of wages and all the indica- tions of unsuccessful industry had begun to show themselves before the political issue of the year had taken shape. It has been disproved since the event by the fact that under the extraordinary recuperative power of this country, and despite the worst of tariffs, there has been an evident revival of financial and commercial prosperity. When the tariff is at last reformed the revelations of these prophets will be found as baseless as were their predictions that a change of administration from the representatives of one half of the people to the representatives of the other half of the people meant the downfall of our entire national interests. We can do no better, in closing, than to call your attention to the ex- cellent statement of the position of the revenue reformers, made by Mr. Kasson, of Iowa, in the House of Representatives, in 1866, before, under the pressure of party policy, he became a protectionist, in which he spoke of protection as “simply a system of equal robbery, taking from one home industry to pay to another.” “ If we go on,” said he, “ in the present plan of adding to the cost of everything we produce, there is not another country on the face of the globe that will contribute oue cent to enrich the people of the United States, or be able to buy a single ar- ticle of our production. It is an attempt against the laws of Providence REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 529 to force the people of this country to pay more for what they need than the laws of Providence would otherwise require. * * * The title of this bill should be changed so as to read, ‘a bill to prevent the diffused blessiogs of Divine Providence from being enjoyed by the people of the United States.’ # * * In relation to the article of iron or upon any other particular branch upon which you increase your tariff, you imme- diately go off in another direction and increase the tariff upon other collateral interests affected by it; and so you follow up a gigantic sys- tem of bounties upon all these interests upon the plea of protecting them.” The recent letters of protectionist interests fully confirm this statement. The Iron and Steel Association asserts that “a blast fur- nace of given capacity which would cost $100,000 in Europe would cost $200,000 in our country,” and the linen-thread manufacturers claim that they work at double the cost for capital over their foreign competitors, and against the great disadvantage of a duty of 40 per cent, on the material they use. The letter of the association admits that after twenty-five years of protection “ labor in the iron industry in this coun- try is paid less in 1885 than it should receive, and less than it has been accustomed to receive.” That it is not the labor cost which prevents export trade is shown by the fact that our export of iron products is chiefly in fine hardware, of which the chief cost is skilled labor, while the coarser product, of which the material is a greater proportion, can- not be exported because of the high cost of that material. “ Protection to American industry,” we are now told, u is a principle and not an expedient. # * * It is admitted by all except mere theorists that protection aids in the development of all the resources of the coun- try; that it stimulates the investment of capital; that it gives steady employment to our own people, &c. * * * Iron and steel manufacturers therefore do not wish to see iron ore placed in the free list, or bituminous coal and coke.” These statements are made to you in the face of the fact that u protection ” has proved weak in its strongest point — the iron industry ; that wages have steadily declined and employment become less steady after many years of “ protecting American labor ”; that many leading manufacturers are now advocating revenue reform in the direction of lower duties, and that there is a division in the very ranks of the Iron and Steel Association itself, despite the effort of that letter to belittle that division, as to the duty on iron ore. Eevenue reformers are fully agreed with the demand that sufficient revenue should be raised to provide for the national defense and for all other purposes of the public welfare, but they desire that the methods of levying our customs or other revenue should no longer restrict our industry and play into the hands of protected monopolists, but should provide in the most economical manner for the benefit of the whole people. Iron is above almost any of our products used peculiarly in productive consumption. It is not destroyed in consumption, as are food and clothing, but its sole use is in making the railroads, the machinery, the tools, the house utensils, which are in every case the means of other industries. Every increase of price, therefore, in the cost of iron in- creases the cost of the products of our industries all along the line; to the farmer, the cost of transporting his crops; to the mechanic, the cost of every tool he uses; to the woman in her kitchen, the cost of every article of cooked food which she puts upon her table ; and, finally, by increasiug the cost or price of everything which we solicit foreign nations to buy, it cuts us off from the markets of the world, and not only per- mits to England, in iron and steel, an exportation of 3,496,352 gross S. Ex. 72 34 530 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. tons, or three-quarters as much as our entire production, but enables everything which she produces to be made cheaper. In other words, the industries of this country to-day are being squeezed to death in this iron-bound tariff. J. B. SARGENT, Sargent & Co ., New Haven , Conn. EDW. J. SHRIVER, New York. GRAHAM McADAM, Late president Cromwell Iron Company , New York. LINDLEY VINTON, President Vinton Iron Works , Indianapolis. M. D. HARTER, Treasurer and Superintendent Aultman & Taylor Company , Mansfield , Ohio. JOHN H. MILLER, Secretary and Treasurer Schreidt & Miller Company , Mansfield , Ohio. ISAAC HARTER, President Peerless Beaper Company , Canton , Ohio. W. G. GIBBONS, Wilmington , Del. And others. Memorandum A . — The cotton-tie duty. In the item of cotton-ties the association complains of the inadequacy of the 35 per cent, ad valorem duty, “ which is a little more than one-half cent per pound,” and asks an increase of the duty to one and one-tenth cents per pound, which would he equal to considerably over 70 per cent, ad valorem. Cotton-ties, which are narrow light iron straps with a simple clasp at the end, are a modern improvement now used in marketing the cotton crop of the South, and possessing many advantages over the hemp ropes formerly used. When the iron cotton-ties first came into use a few years since, the Pennsylvania iron manufacturers claimed that these straps were dutiable as hoop-iron at one and one-half cents per pound, then amounting to something like 70 per cent, ad valorem. The Department decided, and the Secretary reaffirmed the decision, that the article was a manufacture “not otherwise provided for” and was dutiable at 35 per cent. In the course of the discussion Mr. Wharton, of Philadelphia, declared “ that a decision on the subject in favor of the manufacturers would make a difference of perhaps ten or twelve cents per bale of cotton to the planter” — in other words, that the planter was taxed ten or twelve cents a bale already for the duty, and at a higher rate would pay twenty to twenty-four cents per bale. A ten-cent tax on each bale would have amounted in 1883 to nearly $700,000, and in 1884 to $570,000. This amount could be paid in only one of two ways — either the price for American cotton being fixed largely at Liverpool, in competition with the increasing crop of free-trade India, by the planter taking it from the price which he there obtained, so that the crop would net over half a million dollars less in the poorest years — probably the actual result ; or he must add the half million dollars to the normal price of the crop, in which case all domestic wearers of cotton goods would have had to cover this cost as well as the increased profit on this amount, and our foreign market for cotton goods would be still further restricted by the increased price. It may bo added that during the cotton year, 1878- , 79, with a crop of over five million bales, when the rate of 70 x>er cent, was extorted, a potential raise of fully $1,000,000, the Government was benefited to the amount only of $1,227 by the tax on hoop and band iron, in which this item was then included. It is now jiroposed, withextraordinnry effrontery, to again lay this onerous tax on the chief crop of the Southern States and to deprive its peo- ple of the advantage of greater convenience and lowered cost which came with the modern improvement of substituting iron for hemp. In that substitution the indus- try of making hemp rope was of course very much curtailed, but there has been no protest from protectionist sources on this ground. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 531 Memorandum B . — The duty on tin-plates. In the item of tin-plates, the association is dissatisfied with the duty of 1 cent per pound equal last year to 27.88 ad valorem, and asks that the duty should be at least doubled. On the contrary, the recent conference of revenue reformers, at Chicago, asked that tin-plate should be put on the free list. Both sides agree that the present duty is a purely revenue one, the importations for last year having been $18,931,072.70 and the collections $5,278,848.25. “Tin-plates,” as the association states, “are only sheet-iron or sheet-steel coated with tin, or” (under the name of terne-plates) “with a mixture of tin and lead, and it will not be contended by any intelligent person that we could not make them as easily as they are made in England and Wales.” The proportion is stated at 5 per cent, of tin and 95 per cent, sheet-iron. “ We can obtain tin,” adds the association, “from the same coun- tries which supply Great Britain.” There are practically no commercial deposits of tin in the United States, and it does not even appear by name as a minor metal in the compendium of the tenth census ; therefore nobody has asked for a protect- ive duty, and tin itself is on the free list. The real reason we do not make tin- plate in this country is, however, not the absence of higher duty, but the pres- ence of the onerous duty on the iron entering into the manufacture, the immediate material for their manufacture, sheet-iron, being dutiable at 2| cents per pound. If iron ore were put on the free list, and pig-iron relieved of its jjresent duty, it is not improbable that tin-plates might be largely manufactured in this country, despite the fact that the tin itself must be imported. The recommendation of the Chicago conference was made, however, in view of the fact that tin-plate is at the foundation of a great American industry, the manufacture of tinware, entered with its collateral trades in the census report as the twenty-fifth in importance of our in- dustries, and that a lower price of the material would doubtless enable us to compete in foreign markets, because of our suj)erior skill and industrial power, with the tin- plate manufacturers of Great Britain itself. The price of tin-plate is a factor in a very large share of our domestic industries and our exports. Air-tight tin cans have made it possible to preserve for domestic use or for profitable export, millions of dol- lars’ worth of fruits and vegetables, to the profit of our farmers, as well as of oysters and fish; our refined petroleum is shipped almost exclusively in tin; our houses are roofed with it, and the poorest man in the country must buy tin utensils for his kitchen. In the interest both of American manufacturers and of American wage-earners, there- fore, it is to be hoped that the duty on tin-plate, as well as those on its component elements, will be lowered rather than increased. Memorandum C . — Cost of making pig-iron at the South. Recent investigations of the cost of making pig-iron in the South throw additional light on this subject. Mr. R. W. Knott, of the Louisville Courier Journal, revenue re former, cited in that journal in 1884 figures from the books of an Alabama furnace producing 1,786 tous per month, showing that pig was actually produced at a cost of $9.77 per ton (including $4.76 for coke, $1.39 for ore, 80 cents for limestone, $1 67 wages, 61 cents officers’ salaries, 53 cents taxes, stock, fuel, and miscellaneous ex- penses). Mr. R. P. Porter, of the Philadelphia Press, protectionist, was sent South to counteract these figures, but his own report, in his paper of June 4, 1884, gave among his figures a cost of $11.90 at Sloss furnace, $9.20 Alice furnace, $11.90 Cowan furnace. Mr. J. C. Bayles, of the Iron Age, in his presidential address at Chattanooga, before the American Institute of Mining Engineers, made an estimate of $12.35, being for ore, $3 (2£ tons, at $1.25) ; for coke, $5 (two tons, at $2.50) ; for limestone, one ton, 85 cents ; for wages and salaries, $2.50 ; for interest and expense, 50 cents ; for repairs and re- placements, 50 cents. Since the furnaces at Birmingham, Ala., neither mine coal or ore, nor quarry limestone for themselves, but buy their materials, the cost of this part of the product is directly ascertainable by any one who can get at the facts on the sj>ot. Mr. Lindley Vinton, president of the Vinton Iron Works, Indianapolis, visited these fur- naces in May, 1885, and describes the region astkemostpromising field foriron making in the world — rich coal in thick veins running horizontally near thesurface, covering an area of 11,000 square miles ; along its borders rich hematite and fossil ores and beds of limestone, its surface covered with forests for charcoal, the furnaces of the best models, with Whitwall stoves, and every facility for making the best use of the ore ; limestone, coal, and charcoal at the furnace-doors. The ore, a red and brown hematite, is delivered in the stock-house, guaranteed to contain 50 per cent, of iron, at 90 cents per ton, limestone at 90 cents per ton, coal at $1.15 per ton ; “ the material for a ton of iron can be purchased for from $4.25 to $5, delivered at the stock-house.” Using 532 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Mr. Bayles’s figures as to quantity, with actual figures instead of estimates of price, we have then for ore ( 2 \ tons, at 90 cents) $1.98 instead of $3; for coke (two tons, at $2 to $2.25,) $4 or 4.25, instead of $5 ; for limestone, 90 cents, instead of his 85 cents, a net decrease of $1.37 or $1.47, making the cost -of material $6.88 or $7.38. The esti- mate for quantity of coke used is large. Adding Mr. Bayles’ own estimate ($ 3 . 59 ) for labor, salaries, expense, and replacement, we have the total cost $10.38 to $10.88 per ton. Mr. A. S. Hewitt estimates the labor cost at furnace at $1.40 per ton, a still fur- ther reduction. It was stated that the cost of ore to Mr. Morris was 25 cents per ton royalty (reaching as high as $10,000 per acre to the Pratt Iron and Coal Company, owning the mines), 29 cents mining, 25 cents transportation to furnace, the selling price being 90 cents, delivered at stock-house. The monopoly of the Pratt Iron and Coal Company makes the cost of coke high, although the coal is mined by convicts whose wages are bare subsistence. Coke is quoted at $2.25 per ton, but costs the fur- nace men in quantities nearer $2, whereas, with a fair profit to the coal mines, it should not cost over $1.25 to $L.50. Connellsville coke is quoted in Pennsylvania at $1.50 f. o. b., and has been as low as $1.15. The figures of Southern production are criticised as making insufficient allowance for repairs and replacements, interest and adequate profit, and there is probably some force in these criticisms. But taking all these allowances into consideration, it is evident that pig can be made there profita- bly at between $10 to $11 per ton. The laborers at these furnaces and coke-ovens, pets of “ protection,’' are paid 75 to 90 cents, a few $1 per day ; but, taking the aver- age wages paid according to the census report of 1880, when the coke chargers got $1.49 and the laborer $1.27 per day, and the labor figures were given as labor for mining 1.6 tons of coal 38 cents, coking 43| cents, with an average consumption of 1£ tons of coke per ton of iron ; for mining ore 30 cents to $1 per ton ; limestone never over 40 cents per ton — Mr. Vinton figures the labor cost in a ton of iron at labor in coke 75 cents to $1 ; labor in ore CO cents to $2; labor in limestone 20 cents to 40 cents ; labor at furnace $1 to $1.50, a total of $3.05 to $4.90. All the rept of the cost of pig is cost of transportation of materials (partly labor), royalty to the mine owner, interest and profit to the capitalist. The landholder, who has perhaps bought land ot the Government at $1 to $5 per acre, is the great beneficiary of the protective sys- tem. Next to him come the transportation companies, with their watered stocks and monopoly tariffs. It is their partnership which causes the $25 shares of Lake Supe- rior mines to sell at $300, w hile laborers get $1 a day or less. Memorandum D. — Would not the American iron industry have been built up without the tariff f It is taken for granted throughout the letter of the Association that the building up of the iron industry is necessarily a matter of tariff protection. The history of the iron industry both in England and this country does not confirm this position. It was not until 1750, because of the destruction of her forests in obtaining char- coal, that England repealed the duty on pig-iron, at which date the number of fur- naces in England and Wales had fallen to 59, producing only 17,350 tons of iron, or less than halt the product of a single furnace to-day. The American colonies had in the mean time begun to produce iron, and as soon as the duty was removed we began to export it to England, so that before the Revolution the United States had become one of the leading nations in the production of iron. The discoveries and inventions of Darby, Smeaton, Watts, Neilson, Payne, Cort, Huntsman, and Bessemer in improv- ing processes and machinery, coupled with the commercial freedom of England, have kept her in the fore-front of iron production, so that by 1854 she produced half the iron of the world. Our iron industries were in the mean time making fair progress under a system of comparative commercial freedom, for the duty on manufactured iron under the first tariff of 1789 was but per cent., increasing in 1792 to 10, in 1794 to 15, in 1804 to 17-£ per cent. In 1810 our iron products amounted to $14,000,000. It was not until the period of the war with Great Britain that the duty was run up to 30-35 per cent, and specific duties were introduced. Up to 1816 there had been no protection of pig-iron in this country, and iron ore was not mentioned until the tariff of 1883, although in 1867 it had been made dutiable at 20 per cent, under a Treasury decision that it w T as a mineral substance “not otherwise provided for.” The impor- tance of free ore was pointed out in a letter from Abram S. Hewitt to the citizens of Morris County, New Jersey, December 30, 1881, in which he declined to sign a petition in favor of an increase of duty on the ground that it was based on a total misconception of the facts. He explained that much American ore contained of phosporus some- what over the half of one per cent., which is enough to prevent its conversion into steel by the Bessemer process, and that by importing foreign ores practically free from phosphorus, and mixing the two in equal proportions, one additional ton of American ore could be utilized because of each ton of foreign ore imported. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 533 Mr. Jos. Wharton, of the Bethlehem Iron Company, testified before the Tariff Com- mission (Report, p. 1285) that “the use of this foreign ore enables us to apply to the Bessemer steel manufacture large quantities of American ore, which alone could not he used,’ 2 and Mr. S. M. Felton, president of the Pennsylvania Steel Company, said (p. 1289) that his company had examined 454 deposits of alleged Bessemer ore in this country and found but one available mine, capable of furnishing only from 300 to 400 tons per month. These two leading companies have within the past two years in- vested sums said to approximate three millions of dollars in developing deposits of Bessemer orein Cuba, and this interest was largely concerned in the proposed Spanish treaty. The necessity for foreign ore is further shown by the fact that the house of W. D. Marvel, New York, is importing and selling to Pennsylvania iron-masters car- goes of a high-grade Bessemer ore, at $7 free on board cars at Baltimore, which costs laid down at Pittsburgh about $9. 25 ; whereas Lake Superior ore, fully as high iu iron, costs at Pittsburgh only about $8, freight paid. The present iron duties are in fact contrary to the interests of a large part of the iron industry : the makers of ma- chinery, hardware, &c., are hurt by the tariff ; the makers of bar-iron and steel rail get little margin from it; while pig, tbeir material, is raised in price almost to the extent of the duty (“ Scotch warrants” being quoted at Glasgow at 42s. 7 d., or $10.52, while the corresponding “iron certificates” here were at $17.37 in the New York Metal Exchange); and the final result is the great. profit of the monopolists of coal and ore deposits. The duty on the foreign pig which our manufacturers chiefly need is about 60 per cent. Memorandum E . — Hardware manufacture and export. Mr. J. B. Sargent, of New Haven, Conn., one of the largest hardware manufactur- ers in the world, stated at the Chicago Conference that “we must import certain qualities of pig-iron, say 25 per cent, of the total used, and melt with American pig- iron to produce the best mixture for hardware. The high duty, amounting to over 60 per cent., makes the cost of the foreign iron so high that when combined with the American iron the mixture is so expensive as to debar us from exporting the coarser products of the mixture ; therefore the American pig-iron producers are debarred from supplying iron but for little of the commerce of the world. With American pig- iron even at its present prices, the right to import Scotch pig-iron free of duty would do much toward exporting the coarser and heavier manufactures made from the mixture to all parts of the world. As the tariff is we are obliged to content ourselves by exporting only the lighter and more finished merchandise — that which has much of its cost in labor and finish. In order to export largely of the more finished -goods, we must first open and cultivate an export trade with foreign non-manufacturing na- tions, by supplying them with the coarser and heavier goods for their every-day use in their homes and fields. “American manufacturers are placed in substantially the same disadvantages in respect to other common metals, as copper, zinc, and lead, as they are in respect to iron. “Therefore, merchandise made from any of the metals, the principal or a large part of the cost of which consists in material, cannot be exported. This includes castings of iron and brass, with but little finish, coarsely finished machinery, anvils, chains, sledge-hammers, common hinges, and nearly all other metal goods, the principal cost of which is not in labor. Merchandise, the principal cost of which consists of labor or ‘finish,’ can be, and is, quite largely exported from the United States iu competi- tion with ‘pauper labor’ products of Europe, notwithstanding the high-tariff cost of the materials from which they are made. This includes saws of every description, and nearly all kinds of mechanics’ tools of good quality and high finish, steam-en- gines, agricultural machines and tools, and house-builders’ hardware of the better grades especially, and that numerous variety of hardware articles made in the valley of the Naugatuck in Connecticut. The world has been supplied with Connecticut clocks, but latterly the Germans, with their cheaper metals, with machinery copied from that of the New Haven Clock Company, and with some mechanics who were trained in the employ of that company, are successfully competing for a share in the world’s brass clock markets, and even sending their clocks to this country. All the protection the New Haven Clock Company asks for is free trade in materials, not ob- jecting in that case to free trade in clocks. Now, under the working of our tariff laws, the sheet brass used by the Germans is made from United States copper, sold in Europe for several years considerably lower in price than the United States manu- facturers were allowed to buy it.” 534 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [J. Schuster, beveled plates and mirrors.] New York, January , 1886. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : * Sir : In reply to your circular of July 30, 1885, I would say, that un- less there is a duty levied on beveled plates, either specific or ad valo- rem, the beveling industry (which is in its infancy) will be oneof the past. There was a duty of 45 per cent, ad valorem collected on beveled plate- glass previous to 1884, as per paragraph 135, schedule B. By the decision of the United States Court in January, 1884, the above duty on beveled plates was considered unlawful, as in said par- agraph nothing was said about beveled plates, and they were thereafter admitted free of duty. Since then the beveling factories have be.en l.\ing idle, the consequence of which is the men who are employed at this trade are idle and their families are destitute. We cannot compete with' foreign manufacturers under these circum- stances on account of their cheap labor, which is one-third of what we pay in this country 5 also, the materials are much cheaper. I would respectfully suggest a specific duty, as per list inclosed. Yours, very truly, J. SCHUSTEK. [Inclosure.] Cents. 16 running inches and not exceeding 23 inches 7 All under above 5 24 running inches and not exceeding 31 inches 10 32 running inches and not exceeding 39 inches 14 40 running inches and not exceeding 47 inches 18 48 running inches and not exceeding 55 inches 25 56 running inches and not* exceeding 63 inches 35 64 running inches and not exceeding 72 inches 55 All over these dimensions, 60 per cent, ad valorem. [The Schoellkopf, Aniline and Chemical Uo., and others, coal-tar dyes and colors.'] Buffalo, N. Y., October 5, 1885. Hou. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : Sir : We respectfully invite your attention to the inclosed memorial, relating to the present condition of the coal-tar industry in the United States. We are actively engaged in collecting further facts and data pertaining to this industry, and at the jiroper time shall take the liberty of asking for a personal hearing before your honor or before such per- son or persons that you may designate. We are, most respectfully, The Schoellkopf Aniline and Chemical Co., I. F. SCHOELLKOPF, President . Statement relative to the condition of the aniline color industry. The present condition of the aniline color manufactories in the United States is such that oven colors for the production of which the raw material is imported free of duty can only be produced at a very small profit. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 535 Granting that the duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem (on the regular European mar- ket value) was honestly paid, it would he possible to manufacture profitably only colors for whose production duty free raw material is employed. It is a fact that since the tariff reduction of July 1, 1883, many agents of European aniline color manufacturers in this country are no longer agents, but act as and really are copartners of such manufacturers ; thus goods are not invoiced at their market value, but at cost of production. The fact that aniline colors are sold in this country at but a very slight increase in price, and often at the same figures, as in Europe, can only be accounted for by such existing relations. Many of these colors, differing widely in price, are so much alike in appearance that only close and various tests will show the difference, and it is obvious that lack of time and facilities on the part of .the custom-house official prevents such exhaustive tests in most instances, and tends greatly to facilitate the importation of such colors below value. The remedy for removing the obstacles in the path of this very important branch of industry, and the means of helping it to become one of our great manufacturing interests, would be a specific duty with such coal-tar products not colors, or their bases, as are used in this industry free of duty. This would be the cause of a grand development of the aniline color industry, and would also be of untold benefit to the American chemical industry in general. The coal-tar color manufacturers are great consumers of many kinds of chemicals; it necessarily follows that the general development of such an industry would give a general impetus to the production of such articles in this country as are now imported. Thousands of working men would find remunerative employment, and large sums would be gained by the country through these industries. The principal obstacles to a free development of the chemical and especially the aniline color industry in this country are essentially as follows : (1) High wages (main cause). (2) Great expense of the plant and heavy loss caused by wear and tear. (3) Insufficient duty on manufactured colors. (4) High tax on alcoholic spirits. We callyour attention to these four principal causes, and shall make comparisons with the European situation. (1) HIGH WAGES. It should be understood that this has not only reference to regular workmen en- gaged in the manufacture of the products, but also to men whose work it is to erect and keep in repair works of this kind. The latter is as great an expense as the regular routine labor, as regular mechanics are permanently employed for. this purpose, such as carpenters, machinists, masons, engineers, pipe-fitters, blacksmiths, tinsmiths, &c. Wages of mechanics doing ten hours’ work are from $2 to $3 per diem. These same men are paid in Germany for twelve hours’ work from 75 cents to $1 per diem. In America employers are obliged to pay for sober and permanent laborers $1.75 to $2 per day at ten hours. In Germany these same men only command about 72 cents per day of twelve hours. For an aniline color manufacturer in the United States to do a business of $25,000 per month the expense for labor would be $7,000 per month. In Germany the expense would not be more than about $2,500. It has now been shown that the wages for regular labor and repair in an American aniline color manufactory is very nearly threefold those in a German one. (2) COST OF PLANT. The same can be said of the erection and construction of such works, and can be traced directly to the high wages of the mechanic. Furthermore, it is essential, on account of the danger by fire, that such works should be entirely constructed of brick or stone, if only for the reason of obtaining the neces- sary insurance. The necessary apparatus are made of iron, copper, lead, or Avood, and are of such a complicated nature that only the most experienced and competent mechanics can be intrusted with the erection of the same. For such labor we are compelled to pay four times as much as in Germany. The plaut of an aniline works with a capacity for doing a business of $25,000 per month would represents capital as follows: For land $30, 000 For buildings with necessary fire-extinguishing apparatus 140, 000 For machinery, apparatus, &c 160, 000 For raw material, goods in process of manufacture, and finished stock 160,000 536 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Ten per cent, per annum must be allowed for wear and tear. The same, however, amounts to considerably more during the period of its first development. Considering, now, that only 10 per cent, be figured, it would amount to $2,500 per month, whereas the allowance for the same manufactory in Germany would be hardly more than $1,000. The rate of interest is, further, much higher. Stock and plant comprising the sum of $490,000, hearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent., is equal to $2,500 per month, whereas in Germany the interest for an equal manufactory would he at the highest hut $1,100 per month. We would earnestly comment upon the risk being taken by those engaging in such enterprises. Insurance corporations refuse, more or less, to write policies, and when they do, they do so at exorbitant rates. To illustrate, the Schoellkopf Aniline and Chemical Company, in which now some $600,000 is invested, can only obtain insurance to the amount of $150,000 to $200,000, notwithstanding that they are obliged to pay 5 per cent, premium on buildings and their contents, which are deemed extra hazardous. The conditions in Europe are different. There the insurance companies, through their many years’ experience with the processes and nature of the manufacture, do not hesitate to grant full insurance at very much lower rates. (3) TOO LOW DUTY ON MANUFACTURED COLORS. If we take the figures obtained in divisions 1 and 2, we arrive at the following re- sult: IN THE UNITED 8TATES. The expense and outlay of constructing a plant with the capacity for doing a busi- ness of $25,000 per month is : Buildings and machinery $300, 000 Land 30, 000 Working capital 160, 000 490, 000 The monthly running expenses of such a manufactory would be : Wages $7,000 Wear and tear 2, 500 Interest 2,500 Making a total 12, 000 IN GERMANY. The expense and outlay of constructing a plant with a capacity of doing a busi- ness of $25,000 per month is : Buildings and machinery $130,000 Land 20, 000 Working capital 110, 000 Total 260, 000 The monthly running expenses of such a manufactory would be: Wages $2,500 Wear and tear 1, 000 Interest 1,100 Total 4,600 Consequently, with a business of $25,000 per month the German manufacturer has an advantage over the American to the extent of at least $7,400 per month, or about 30 per cent. This is without taking into consideration a greater risk, greater expense, and other outlays during the period of its development. We would also state that the present prices of aniline colors cannot be considered as average, as manufacturers in Europe have been suffering for the last two years from an overproduction, causing them to dispose of their excess at a loss. It is impossible in this country to manufacture colors with a profit, the raw mate- rial for which pays a duty of 20 to 30 per cent. Almost all aniline colors at present come under this latter class. For instance, the well-known “green coal-tar colors.” These colors are at present sold in Europe for from $1.20 to $1.60 per pound. Should the full duty now be paid wo would have an REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 537 advantage over the European manufacturers of from 42 to 56 cents per pound, hut under present conditions it is impossible to manufacture these colors in this country. One of the oldest and most experienced chemists, whose very successful engagement in one of the first German manufactories covers a period often years, was some years ago the first to arrive at a practical method of manufacturing in quantities these faniline greens. He had made a specialty of these colors for many years and was thoroughly posted on all improvements that have been made. But even with the facil- ities of one of the largest aniline factories of this country he was unable to produce them at a profit for reasons above specified. The same can be said of many other col- ors, that the present duty is an insufficient protection forthe American manfacturer. (4) HIGH TAX ON ALCOHOLIC SPIRITS. No aniline color can be profitably manufactured in the United States for whose production alcohol is necessary. A relief from this high tax would be of great ad- vantage to the American industry in general. A high tax exists in Germany upon alcohol, but not upon such as is used for manu- facturing purposes. A difference in the value of coal-tar colors varies to such an extent that we would urge the division of them into classes. As the most exact and probably the only practicable classification; we would respectfully present the following: (1) All coal-tar colors or their bases not being naphthaline derivatives, 60 cents per pound. (2) All coal-tar colors or their bases being naphthaline derivatives, 30 cents per pound. (3) All coal-tar colors being anthracene derivatives in a dry state, 60 cents per pound. For paste such as alizarine, for 20 per cent, paste, 10 cents per pound. Class 1 would be composed of colors whose value per pound in a pure and unadul- terated state would vary from $1 to $8, and whose average value would be $2. Class 2 would be composed of colors whose value in a pure and unadulterated state would vary from 40 cents to $1.40 per pound, and whose average price would be about 70 cents. Class 3 would be composed of artificial alizarines and all anthracene derivatives. Alizarine is and has been duty free owing to its being a patented product, the claim being made that this substance was analagous to madder. This claim being disproved, the patent was declared void about one year ago. Anthracene, the basis and principal raw material for alizarine, exists here in great quantities, but remains entirely worthless on account of the free entry of alizarine. We refer in classes 1 and 2 to the color in a pure and unadulterated condition, as coal-tar colors are frequently adulterated as much as 75 per cent. For this reason alone we cannot consider the present prices normal. We claim that with a healthy reaction in trade and a return of conditions to a nor- mal basis, our proposed duty wrnuld on the whole hardly amount to more than 35 per cent, ad valorem. We now submit additional facts concerning the chemical and aniline color in- dustry. The duty on all aniline colors previous to July 1, 1883, was 50 cents per pound, and 35 per cent, ad valorem without any classification. After the revision of the tariff various manufacturers deemed it inadvisable to in- vest any further capital in improvements and enlargements of their works, and were gradually obliged to suspend and ret ire. Among these were: Dan. Dawsons’ Sons, Philadelphia, Pa.; Empire Aniline Dye WorkR, Brooklyn, E. D., N. Y. ; John Holliday, Brooklyn, E. D., N. Y. ; Williams Brothers & Eakin, Woodliaven, L. I., N. Y. ; Hoerlin & Kupferberg, Brooklyn, E. D., N. Y ; Bloede & Rathbone, Parkersburgh, W. Va. This state of affairs was and is of a much more serious nature to the remaining con- cerns — the Shoellkopf Aniline and Chemical Company, Buffalo, N. Y. the Albany Aniline Company, Albany, N. Y. ; Heller & Merz, Newark, N. J. ; Hudson River Ani- line Color works, Albany, N. Y. These establishments have a capital invested of about $1,000,000, and had they de- cided to suspend it would have resulted in entire loss. Instead of adopting this lat- ter course, they have made every possible effort to carry the work on. They sent to Europe for chemists of great experience in foreign manufactories who were capable and practical t-pecialists, also forforemen and workingmen who had been employed in foreign manufactories for years. The best and most modern apparatus they could obtain were also imported. Suf- fice it to say that the greatest effort has been made to make this industry a success in this country. How fruitless all this has been is shown by the condition of manufac- tories in this country to-day. Their production has been largely curtailed and ren- 538 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. dered unremunerative. It is a fact that their works will have to succumb within a very short time if they are not granted the required protection, thereby causing the chemical industry in general a heavy blow. With a normal state of affairs, the duty we advocate for class I would amount to more than 35 per cent, ad valorem only upon a few colors. Whereas, upon many col- ors a duty of 35 per cent, would amount to considerable more than $1 per pound. Ev- ery expert whose opinion is not prejudiced by European manufacturers or importers in this country must concur in the feasibility of our classification, and acknowledge that it is the only practicable and just one. The proof that the duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem on colors coming under class 2 is too low is illustrated by the fact that very few of these colors are manufactured here. The objection that might be raised to this duty would be that many of the colors coming under class 2 are patented, and consequently would make them unnecessarily expensive. In opposition to this we assert that many of these colors are not patented, and, furthermore, that recently patents have been taken out in this country by Ameri- can manufacturers which wiil enable them, provided the protection is granted, to manufacture all shades of colors coming under class ‘A Class 3. Notwithstanding that within the past year the patents on these colors have been declared void, no one has even thought to manufacture them in this country, there being no protection to encourage the establishment of the very expensive plants required. No fear need be entertained that the proposed duty would perceptibly increase the market value of Hies© colors. The competition encouraged by the presence of immense quantities of raw material, which is essential for many colors, would become so great that the prices would regulate themselves. Attention should also be called here to the fact that aniline colors have great tinc- torial power. The more expensive ones coming under class 1, are often dyed from 1 to 300 ; that is, for every 300 pounds of wool only 1 pound of color is required. Thus the consumer of textile fabrics would have to meet a very small increase of expense, if any, and the development of this industry would certainly overbalance any such trifling expenditure. By the revision of the tariff in 1883, the duty was lowered so much that it practi- cally ruined the business of manufacturing coal-tar colors in this country. We are positively informed that, should a new tariff revision be contemplated, European manufacturers will make great exertion to reduce the duty still further. Should they succeed in this seemingly impossible project, the death blow would be given to the coal-tar industry for years to come. Respectfully submitted. The Albany Aniline Company, Albany, N. Y., F. V. M. Hudson, Treas. Heller & Merz, New York. Hudson River Aniline Color Works, Albany, N. Y., Louis I. Waldman, Treas. The Schoellkopf Aniline and Chemical Company, Buffalo, N. Y., I. F. SCHOELLKOPF, Prest: In addition to the herein-mentioned changes in the present tariff on coal-tar dyes and colors, we would respectfully commend the following on articles pertaining to the manufacture of these colors ana dyes : Commercial aniline oils, such as aniline, toluidine, xylidine, &c., or mixtures there- of, free. Coal-tar products, not colors, not specially provided for, free. Benzole and nitro-benzole, free. Nitrite of soda, |c. per lb. [The Foreign Fruit Exchange of the City of New York, fruits .] Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury : New York, January 15, 1886. Sir : The importers of green and dried fruits doing business in this city, desiring to express their views in the event of a revision of the present tariff, asked that a joint meeting of the committees on trade and information and statistics of the Foreign Fruit Exchange of the REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 539 City of New York be called to determine what change in the duties might be most advantageous. Therefore, the undersigned officers of this exchange, and members of these committees, after proper and mature investigation, and acting under the authority of said exchange, respectfully recommend that the following schedule of rates be fixed on the articles specified herewith, viz : Our first conclusion and request is that oranges, lemons, and grapes of Mediterranean production be placed on the free list. If said request does not meet with your approval, we then beg that the duty on all green and dried fruits shall be made specific, and suggest that the duties be fixed as follows : Boxes of oranges: Per box Per half box. Boxes of lemons : Per box Per half box. Oranges, per case Lemons, per case . Oranges, per barr< Grapes : Per barrel Per half barrel 12J Secondly : Raisins, currants, dates, figs, prunes, plums, and prunelles, per pound 1 Thirdly : Preserved or candied citron, per pound 3 Preserved or canclieS orange-peel, per pound 3 Preserved or candied lemon-peel, per pound 3 Fourthly : Almonds in the shell, per pound 2 Almonds shelled, per pound 5 Walnuts and filberts, per pound 1 We believe it to be the policy of the Government to reduce the ex- isting excessive surplus revenue, and as a principle believe that specific duties afford the best protection. We consider that there is no conflict of any consequence in these modifications with any American indus- tries, and there seems every reason to admit these articles under the proposed rates of duty. It appears an undisputed fact that the great consumption of these articles is by the middling and poorer classes in all parts of the country ; and it would seem to be of the utmost im- portance, and at the same time desirable under existing circumstances, that they should be put within the reach of all consumers at the lowest possible cost. Asking your consideration of these recommendations, and trusting the same will meet with your approval, We remain, sir, your obedient servants, Jno. C. Giles, president; Ciias. H. Parsons, vice-president; Frederick J. Eobinson, treasurer; Wilton Eose, secretary. Committee on Trade. — Levi Pawling, of Willet 0. Ward & Co., Jo- seph T. McDowell, of McDowell, Pierce & Co. ; W. H. Wester- velt, of W. H. Westervelt & Co.; Henry T. Wills, of Wills & Drummond ; Eobt. Henderson, of Eobt. Henderson & Co. Committee on Information and Statistics. — Joseph L. Arguimbau, of Zuricalday & Arguimbau ; Frederick S. Eobinsou, of Fred- erick S. Eobinson & Co.; Henry T. Wills, of Wills & Drum- mond; Horace W. Day, of Sgobel & Day ; Peter J. Thorne, of Peter J. Thorne. Cents. 10 5 15 7i 20 25 40 25 540 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [The Foreign Fruit Exchange of the city of New York, fruits.'] New York, February 3, 1886. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington: Sir: The undersigned officers of the Foreign Fruit Exchange of this city have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your favor, 20th ultimo (L. G. M.), addressed to Mr. Frederick S. Eobinson, treasurer of our ex- change, and, in obedience to your request, beg to furnish your Depart- ment with the desired information and suggestions, which you are at liberty to communicate to Congress and otherwise give publicity thereto as you may deem proper. We again respectfully and urgently recommend that oranges, lemons, and grapes be placed on the free list, for the reasons stated in our pre vious respects ; but if said request does not meet the approval of Con- gress, we then beg that the duty on all green and dried fruits be made specific, said system affording the best protection to American interests, and take the liberty to suggest that the duties be fixed as follows : GREEN FRUIT. Oranges and all species of oranges : In packages of capacity not exceeding 11 cubic feet. per package . . 5 In packages of capacity exceeding 11 cubic feet and not exceeding 21 cubic feet per package . . 10 In packages of capacity exceeding 21 cubic feet and not exceeding 5 cubic feet per package . . 20 In packages of capacity exceeding 5 cubic feet and not exceeding 71 cubic feet (beiug the largest dimension so far received) per package.. 30 Packages of capacity exceeding 71 cubic feet, additional for every additional cubic foot or fraction thereof per package . . 5 Lemons and all species of lemons: In packages of capacity not exceeding 11 cubic feet per package.. 71 In packages of capacity exceeding 11 cubic feet and not exceeding 21 cubic feet per package.. 15 In packages of capacity exceeding 21 cubic feet and not exceeding 5 cubic feet per package.. 30 Packages of capacity exceeding 5 cubic feet, additional for every additional cubic foot or fraction thereof per package. . 10 Oranges and all species of oranges, lemons and all species of lemons, in bulk, $1.60 per thousand. Grapes : In packages of capacity not exceeding 11 cubic feet per package. . 12^ In packages of capacity exceeding 11 cubic feet and not exceeding 3 cubic feet per package . . 25 Packages of capacity exceeding 3 cubic feet, for every additional cubic foot or fraction thereof additional per package. . 10 The above duties we consider equal to an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent, assessed on some of the imported fruit under the existing tariff, the duty being levied on the fruit only and not on the charges, and if, in the wisdom of Congress, the duty on other merchandise is to be re- duced, we beg the same treatment for green fruit. It is absolutely impracticable to suggest a rate of duty by weight, for the following reasons : Green fruit being of a perishable nature, decay attracts moisture, and packages will weigh more than when dry and the fruit sound, unless containing dry-rot, so-called j in which case the package will weigh less. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 541 Packages will contain lighter fruit than others, and weigh more or ' less accordingly. Packages of same mark will weigh more or less, de- pending on decay or size of fruit. The several sizes of the fruit also contribute to the weight, more or less. Packages, therefore, not being uniform in weight, all importations would have to be weighed at the expense of the revenue and serious detriment to importers, as fruit suffers by handling, and the delay in weighing would hinder the rapid delivery required by the trade, and would be another serious matter. We therefore beg that no such idea should be entertained, being detrimental to the interest of the revenue, as well as to the importers. We further recommend the following specific duties: Cents. Brazil nuts Chestnuts Peanuts, in the shell Peanuts, shelled Filberts, shelled Cocoanuts (as now) . . per pound.. 1 do.... 1 do 1 do 2 do.... 2 Free. and beg to refer you to our previous report regarding dried fruits and nuts not mentioned above. We are unable to make suggestions about comfits, sweetmeats, &c., they being outside of our line of business. We have the honor to remain, your obedient servants, John 0. Giles, President; Chas. H. Parsons, Vice-President; Fred- erick S. Robinson, Treasurer. Committee on Trade. — Levi Pawling, of Willet 0. Ward & Co.; Joseph T. McDowell, of McDowell, Pierce & Co.; W. H. Westervelt, of W. H. Westervelt & Co.; Henry T. Wills, of Wills & Drummond; Robt. Henderson, of Robt. Henderson & Co. Committee on Information and Statistics. — Joseph L. Arguimbau, of Zuricalday & Arguimbau ; Frederick S. Robinson, of Frederick S. Robinson & Co.; Henry T. Wills, of Wills & Drummond; Horace W. Day, of Sgobel & Day ; Peter J. Thorne, of Peter J. Thorne. John C. Giles, ex officio , of Lawrence, Giles & Co. [Frederick S. Robinson & Co., fruits.] New York, February 5, 1886. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington: Sir : We take the liberty to submit further reasons besides those given by the Foreign Fruit Exchange of this city against assessing duty on green fruit by weight. The bulk of the importations now being done by steamers, cargoes generally consist of 20,000 to 30,000 packages, with 500 to 1,000 differ- ent marks, representing a large number of shippers and consignees. Each mark of fruit, therefore, would have to be weighed separately, and as the wharfage facilities are very much restricted, same would be almost impossible or would certainly greatly retard the prompt delivery demanded by the trade and subject buyers to the risk of the fruit suf- fering on the wharf from the heat in summer aud frost in winter, thus subjecting the purchasers to serious losses, whose interests should be con- 542 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. sidered, as well as in a sanitary point of view, having recently been proved by our board of health by confiscating fruit in a frozen condition, which, v as you can readily see, would be a serious matter for the purchasers and consignees of the fruit. Duty by measurement fully protects the revenue. Packages of green fruit are of standard sizes, and no difficulty therefore can be experi- enced in the collection of the correct duty, as it has been proved under the existing tariff on the portion paying specific duty recommended by the late Tariff Commissioners at our suggestion. In our opinion, however, fruit being an element of health, it should receive every consideration by the Government in order that it may sell cheap and be within reach of our laboring classes. We know it to be a fact that cheap fruit is an inducement for heads of families unable to spend much for luxuries to buy fruit for their families when within reach of their means in preference to spending five to ten cents for drinks, therefore encouraging temperance. Green fruit ought, there- fore, also on said account go on the free list $ and, as agriculture in this country requires no protection, land being cheap and labor-saving ma- chines reducing the cost of production to a level below the cheap labor but higher cost of land in Europe, this country can compete with all lands without protection, and the welfare of our community should therefore receive consideration. You can make use of this communication as you may think best. We have the honor to remain, your obedient servants, FEEDEEICK 8. EOBINSON & CO. [Eob’t Friedrichs, iron and steel wire works.] New York, January 30, 1886. Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury , Washington , D. G. : Sir: Having written to you before in regard to the rate of duty on Bessemer steel wire rods in coils and loops, I now respectfully refer you to our statistics of imports of merchandise, page 623, and for a better understanding give here a copy of same: 1885. Quantity. Value. Duty. 1 Price per lb. Wire rods (rivet, screw, nail, and fence) round in coils and loops, not lighter than No. 5 wire gauge, valued at 3 J cents per pound or less, duty T 6 ff cents per pound: Iron Pounds i 67, 274, 447 $1; '3-0, 309 00 1 403, 646 68 Cents. *o Steel 1 77, 836, 830 1,161,323 16 $473, 020 91 *1 ft Wire lods of steel, not elsewhere specified, duty 45 per cent Wire of iron, smaller than No. 5 and not smaller than No. 10 wire gauge, duty 1£ cents per pound 115, 211, 035 1.433,145 00 644, 915 25 2, 679 179 00 40 19 *U) B b . ®'-S 1 pj o Pi S © fl - - © B,© O 05 « •P'3 m+s h n • © a © B- © Bi « IN A O — • ^ K5 Q i T 3 B 3 o . ft ■P43 B B B © © © B> © © B S B»© © K 5 O W W COININ lO Shelled REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 551 O 30 00 Tf< 05 in cm a> r-i co oo ** g O *8 © Qj © {7 Ph® || © a © © C~ M HH CM 'd'O-P a a a p 3 a o o o p.p«p< © a a © © ©-M 88 8 B O isls © © © p< ■e-g p 2 'f o 8* ® a p-e © a © © _ © rJ . . n o«o © © © +i p<2 ft£ -fj W-© fl-gflw © a © © © © © a, O °H8IO .HinCM'* ® o mm o in co t* ©5 in CO CO ss§ 33 S 3 S CM CO rH in 33 S —I CO CM in co ^ o m r-i in os o co «H MHH( 00 Tj< i : -M © o'* -1 r d H ■ ■ ‘ i! X © tia a'P Ig - *i'S 'O r© • • 2 o o Has -a o • • Pi © 5 J § Jl^ia si 83 Os'S « in o -H CO l> o © CO '3’S as 9 CO g p 2 as ft a . _ >lTS ® 5 ©2 © p3p|.* MOO o'P'P as ■ • M ■ .en 2 00 © -O © rt jaZsx ®xH?” >x ■g Pm 2 © a -as p-* 3 o ^2 g = 23§ © o © p .3 a si; ^■§a§ © mp.2 p,-9 fac' « a I « c3 ©jll •a g g 1 a •g a s Sfi as a .gs =« as £ © o §®a2 £» r£.§:ggS ©-p£HO>>9 aH n £ 1 as © -© -© © -© +j -©> a a ©.a a a q^ O ® © © p^p-o P^PhP, OOlOiOOO H- +3 p p CO CO CO .lO H iC t> LO ic H M to O) <© o efrf 1 O O CO ONOOrJ'^O) -ti^r^C5iO(N 00 CO rH t> CO co~i> eo* r-T tcTco' r- ^ cj to C5 oo CO rH 00 wo CO lO t— CO CO i^^oco COHNO) CO CO o O 00 o m o> m es a -a ■ rH © r a © C3 rr. ® ft ©aa © a fee .a I a .2 [as ft© a 3 a « GTS a "go© -co© ® ftp « 5 -©>CQC3 13 I CliASS A,— ARTICLES OF FOOD AND FIVE ANIMALS (TO BE FREE)-Continued. 552 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. •ga^Ki punod -moo put? opioads jo ^ua[BA[tiba m'ajox'BApY £ § © © © « » © © ® "§ P.P.® ®»o w i-l CM rH a rt © © 3 O © « -■"3 u U 5 © © 5 • J . o o CM i-l 0 S H © © © P

O CM 00 Cl NCJCO 00 I> CO O CO < r-t O 00 O t> l> TjT co* cf rt rH CO 00 O CO O t'- O CM CM rH P"d o ‘ ft §-s Hi « O 03 *© g oTP- rt © © g © © P«M I** © 2 & • go a ISISs p« ®s= O PhPH jjMoSS 3 <3 -2 w S| © 'O o 3 Cm © £ a ;kW^ idstuffa REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 553 O l> H t> (M O tH <0 00 C- CO 05 diodnod • . vy ' ^ *9 »9 , 3 ai cn • 9 3 0 ‘ 2,©,© ' CJ • * , vy w ggft ; igftftg © © i§ o o ft.g £ © s- l sjQ'd'o+=>aa^ © p| a© a © 8* CQ d o oo < )(NCOt>nt^CO^( )OCOOOHOI>< lO Hl> (M O 00 CO CO oo oo oo • • oo co • co ©'§ © O d'2'® o'® 'S g-S'^'* a-S'? u a © s ,Q ftps sS O p, fl oo © © „ © © Ss *£*©13'? NgU 8| .S 9 ^ a © « © C 3 p Naa irljl*.®-* “jOi© 2 ®.9 a . © © © © a © ^ O ©,"■ " ■■ ■“ Is 05 ' -a O no 2 ’o . §1 ?s. ft ^ © OO Q. 03 l-^ 1 © 03 13 13 a a a a © o ftft ftft a a © © © © o oo ih •<* ia 03 (M 00 CO t- CO CO CO — < V- CO rH i3 ora 5 a 2 a ft o a.« _S rO f-vg'S ..g<(S3 J«M £> 03 0> a o pQ o ^ ©niS © § 8-g.gl.g SS,S 2 a^ljf foil's ,3!^ii w i r 8 ^ - bC P c 3 i +3 p © © ^ J” ®'g'i , 3 •«S©ft'a3a2 r a©ac 3 a [ ^ ^“a§©|t>t>£ r a 8 ° ® 2 ® © 2 fe •| a a fcj'S .9^0.9 -E ^ a° CJLASS B.— ARTICLES IN A CRUDE CONDITION (TO BE FREE)— Continued. 554 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. piraod •moo p xe opioods jo ^aoiBAinbo tuoaopsA py 0^ us in ohn o © © PhP< 05 05 p p © © © © O O P-a f-i u © © ftp. a a a H & © p © P.® pH _® ^ _® p-2 "a © p © © © © Hh U lO C-4 lO .-! a o a o ® ® ©.g g.« p eJ ® © P t» ©33 3 CO lO 1-1 Oint'Q 03 O CO 00 O lO C3 O a'p *> .2 © 3 * 2 P 3 3 P ® ’,3 *5.5:3 .2 £«f ca'B 3 ® pj 05 ^ © © 43© p GO © u © © o t» CO O MbC ■§•§ _ « « B 2 C ® * © P t, © © tc'S ^ p - a to I <2 -® & o p^. © © ©O-B OP5.® $ I P3 O — — £< J. O £ © © © 2 .©« S sfSI^ = '3°1 u 3 ® ^l| -p a° ■r 3 of- 3 5 *4 pa t> P 3 5 I ® | % O « a 3 o P H -«© I 2j§ s A 2S-1 I p g a ojp p g p's ®aa © 0,3 — l.g£s ^ * § © -bcg-B kpgo os — pa _ 2|s1-b .2 p S m 2 "So pa -, pj ® - — p. » § « - ■p ^b' 2 B ^b£§^®_ : SrsHs p P MO'S S3 0 f £ £ ® pg >5 ® >jo fan !“£©- 3 © a © 50 p» — © -g © £ ?sg£ sl-S-g ■§§.35 05 . 3 -3 • P 3 ® 3 ©3 o P. | cf § g ; J»i I > 3 °3-s SB « o s©g *2 Ops'? a SO a ° WB e - 3 P p— © © ? feCdBO > © g M « co o ©Q o g § § £ 05 .2 S 3 b» ®P3 | P^^ 00 > CJ o «3 ,r"3 * S ®2 §|®p « a ilia ©5 ® a 3 a — " §1 2 ^O'S X© 2 cT- 3 S *2 © ® 5 2 M, 3 &' II P’S 3 ° I il? ©3 b£ H >3 o ® a a g e. |I *8i P rH © -* O 00 © CO CO © © cm cm t>r P 0'S J A ° o g g ° £ £ p © © fa fa © pp® © ft »hi P P. r\ a p © © © © S : « o fa>d -*a«g +3 ©7* © < 2 £ •2 © • ^ 0t ss® 6- ©O © PlO © Who •66- <©-i© gp.pp.ag © _ © _ © © ©5©2 vo o fa p — a fa fa'd ©0 r-T 50 © 00 rH t> © lO © rH CM © © CO CM~ r-T Of CM © rH < © © © ^ © © © © CM © © © © rH © © © © rH cT t4 t>T ©* cT © © © rH 00 00 © CO CM 00 CO 00 © rH< © ^ © 00 rH 00 CO 00 r* © r- CO H © f rf 4 acf rP © b- CO rH 00 © oc CO r4© © CM © CO b*» © t> © ^ CO © 00 00 © b~ CM H*?OiO00t> CM CO rH © CM b- I'd ^ ; _© ® P c> 'd g ©'d © te'd'd 3 S| 0 p 3 9 ft ® J ° tf ^ c 83 p-d tf ’l. fa © J 3 Mg, : 3 3^.2 ° o o 1^3 rtf o Is I s i o § 2 2 fc* Mrtf w'g ® lilt © o 0+ 3 _ . P 1 r g rtf O-tP-'P P ® © p p 3 'gO.Srtf-^^.S'tf-tf®'^ d t> fH in ( 1 ) n n n ^ 0 e8 £ r. © £|3 ©rtf g fa P_ .© «s^ • r-H rtf _ * - . q®©S.p Cp 43 rP ^d CO 43 rP © *> *. 42 .a ® S..3.8 © O oflpjopoa^ rtf =a 43 Cp O-PP -'(.(..soppaa OO^POOOO rH rH H ^ r*T r^ irH r-H rtfrtf 03 42 rtf rtf rtf rtf . an . ^ © © © © 4a § p® ® u p® ® ® ® | Prtf*sPP®*aPPPP I «3o cjat 4o SSl3,1 5 p®^S5 o^SS5S| i n rtf O S © P | bfi® 2 a ° & © » H 6 O «fl Poe i_, .„4a ° ® 8 M ©rg P ©r 3 •g43 © i PfaZl : p I'd • p I <3 = |l il^ 5 *H O. o 5* +p © 3 * o a ©*fa 3 a' pu-3 1 1 1 S S 5 g.| | © ° 2 •• 5 » § 1 ^ 355 S« o£a © ll|« Ssl-p 1 o-a p ,r,; rt 'JW ■ Srtf'S^ 8 ii 2 5 fl a i? I g-o CIjASS B. — ARTICLES IN A CRUDE CONDITION (TO BE FREE) -Continued. 556 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. '89^'BJ pnnod •moo pue opioads jo SnorBAiubo mejoiBA py Ah w oo lOiai o i Ol X t> Ift 00 c-i 4ji . © . © . •-a • r 2'S r 3 •03 • 0 03 a : S : p p § If I OrQ § •g ®-g ?© p* ® Pig © Pig © ® © Pi ® Pi © a u += a +3 © © © Pl © 0 Pi© Pi© « © o o o u o 53 P *2 3 •d Js P.S a h o in < in m oo comm rf TjuO l> tXM hoV O OO^OOCO O rH in CO O rH CQ c4* »h > CO CO «H< O 00 t> O CO CO o CO CO C- CO oj co t-H m co 3 g «*£ c- o < of -ft Cl 4* O t> © Ift oTco Ift 1-1 c-co 13 moon c: r* co OHO ocT oTc^f rH in fr- O afsf © ■ •d • p ® :JS . © • ^a • © i'g’I'S :§-Sf Pi I !1 : *§ » I •§•§ P 03 4 i 1 'P Pi ■ »-3 © - d s O Oi PI f- •73 o W 1 rt © 3 03 © a -p as -g§ 'S'S m hs © m BBS & co 373 d-e O N I I teg a » 00 rz h : 2 |© Jill .. U 03 0 <-* •0 g'd P O © p, P c3 ■*£ (- ST« 0 d a ® o h-h 4-> U - P fcj) p.S pf'g ® g e3 d 9 3 ,P S'P ej ■•'g § © © g'O ;r|HI z&s ^dc 8 c 3 ®.Hcd O SMOtfW^Pi "flSO § 2 O § a ril - - >3 - O dpu p d**- 1 .O Oo - © o -£T..P Pp “ d Sf c-eflS 3?p." H P 2 «e§V poop ' P H o O ©43 tx sl« I is © G3 _ 235 P.O 1 5 "u'H ® © 1 p.2 Sopidp . P'gO Brl 2’® S ©|ll||l|| qs-SHPAEfc O'H ■62 CAS REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 557 CLASS C.— ARTICLES WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY MAIVEFACTCRED FOR USE AS MATERIALS IN THE MANUFACTUR- INCr AND MECHANIC ARTS (DUTIABLE). 558 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. S t> c$ >S 9 ^ 1 tt punod •moa pn* ogioads jo laaptAinba oi'ojoiba p y- *8 53 3 n |8 8| iS s 1 ft a >3 0 0 •O a 0 o o ft ft p ft do a a p _ © q p S 83 8 ^ ft P< P <-w ft ft ia u # -« '■T 5 ^ a a a : ft? © 2 8 f-< O fl .2 aa S « a « fi 5 g*§. © -g &§ 5 4 ^ OD © rg Kr r © _a rH © e- t ©i’S® ^ 5-2 8 : © 0 - -a 0 ! O nW O ^3 a w oq a © © ® o a a ft' o PQ M fi 2 pips a r g^ljpa a,- g a a a -© 3 ® S-l ;||i I lien'll § « 8fi 2 2® ft§^ 8s W 5 <1 o © a BMj l a C H £ a sa a£ i| ra-a 2 © S 8 St © o d§« © 2 a =5fta IIS - © a qO© © © © “fit © o a "£>3 a a © © o a -a «2t> S- •3 oo^r a a © a Is £ © « Bo »_ a j ° afi cl 8 -a .§ H-'d'a Aa 3 © £ © ft B>3 P3 c3 _ © rB CB^- © -© cS © © rM C 3 o ftS III S“S afi 2 a 0 1 §f © ©fi ® s © tc.2 » a *- o .. © a _ t> {> I .2 S i o ,© •i-S ® ©H « © fee © cs a « S’® na £ a ©-a a -pa iasai « ^ i i © g fi a X -a <111 of© On O °T3 | u-a q a © § j "t © © i © ft ft ; 3 a a i a © < *"_-©- pfi-o< < o ©+ 3 - ©= a « d”2 2 d 5 .a REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 559 T5S82 c?smoi S 3 fa fP s s g s to ci o' o 'C'd P P P P o o aa S © aa as as -fa +s P P -.'p'p 'p o a 3 p p Poo 2 ftft ft fa fa fa +3 a a © P © © a© © © ; ■'d'P : 1§3 • goo ; © a a • w fa © •fa fa © © g ® © fa fa p a ‘ © p © © a © © © m W eWH* moioioo ■ •d*d ! P P ^22 p p o o aa |7aa © CD to £p 3 fa © © g w © ; ■ •d'd 'O P P • P P P • Poo fafa p p as s s to °(W^i ■<* d CM CO 5 fa • *g8.f fa p © p p © © s» 5 ; © g « a aa^P, to fa* T* co © © ^a fa r-t fa fa CO In Si o T -^00 ^ ^ oo o § ^2 CO CO OS rH *H Of rt< 05 O^M rH rH TjT l> ^ rH 40 » co c© oi t> CCifiZOCi CO ^eoo co r-» IO II CO iO Irf OCO roiff^T O CO 00 IO^ICJi rH CO £ 3 OS L" 00 o fa o 01 CM tjT tn" • • Td • ■ • ; : :p £ : : : o o « p o o o r o r P as H r P'd r P • -rS o . - a A P3 ■'d p* a a p P o a** a^ : p 5 es cs a a a lfafag« g . o o p.^ a o © 0J © rl © si& 5 c© 'd > o 5^0 i s O P a i « _ H S'g'i 2 « a © 'd p © £ fc £ fc «fa ©©SJ-©2© 00 P_ pa © Ofa ©po^.o.P'd 03 o 5^ £ ■d cd bt -d -d 'd bt u «4)0©®4 ) «)®Ot3 e d © .,5 j= d p © P ,!>!>■§ bt-r “ 17 g © © ® ® 2 *a® ©J © 0 ®oo ^2 P"° a^ p r P , P r P ^ gp.g Jsps © : : p 2 a ~ p> p ^ - g as _r o 32 © ©rd o 0r d fa ©.a as a & © &fa3 68 © fa P o © © © •cl © a §* * ^3 a -43 g ® p aJS fa bf^fa d ® © ° •fa © P — i ©■ fa c« fa o © © o pa 2fa ©'P P .E'd' ! ®.2'd« be L--a © ..a llll-il i © rt -® -2" 1 a2 ©- © • ° © © i tn S+i - r— g to H fa o © pj c© • • a o o ppp g'd © 9 '^=23 «lii 'S.2sb| ^aa _ fd cc •— ® o © P > P ■Pc© fa © §§§?• 5 • 'd rp a P 3 P o 2 a ^ © fa © 2 a If 1 ! ®^ S - S ! , s tt-fa © a cs a ®-d^ a ;,ra a Sea ^ o A ' •sis a p a _ c ^ o ^ ® v ^ Ol> o 4 ^. ^ .Q ^ bfj ^ S?,'- C3 c3 C3 cs o ^ - J LJ rrt ^ 'w *w 'd *d ftp e«s § § § § .2 ©S o'cS'd’P ft M la •2 L 21 .2 a 2 a ad . o 'S pa © © Ottfl p P a oo bt^ miiim '•2 *2. © ® ^'d'P © »,O r ® H fl n C o © rt Sfen 2 ® ® * -P -• ® ^ 0 2 ® ©-2 fa ® o o as a+s p O^rHCM at>>> So as —S © P ■P ® ft p* "pa © fafa © o OtH ggU fa On3 fa © fa^ a w w B -9 rrj • ©5 (- 'p . «8 0 © P P3 O ®_a ! a © 9 I aga I. fa bc2: © © p o <^rC.S « as - ®^ a' S fa © O -•p S © ® o ®pa •gW w 140, 227 CLASS C. — ARTICLES WHOLLY OB PARTIALLY MANUFACTURER FOR USE AS MATERIALS IN THE MANUFACTUR INR AND MECHANIC ARTS (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 560 EEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASUEY. *69^131 pnnod -ai09 pan oppads jo quapjAinba raaioiHA py . o JCO ■ o > •"* t- CO ca n <3> O r-i ( CO Tt< 00 CO 05 00 rH »A CO 05 O E-00 ri »g g'Sjes^ g bo© O IM 9 ®«a j Ills ills ii== o « ^ es W _ ©.P 5 ©*2^ p ^ 2 t-i ' ^*p <-> ft© 3 o A 0-9 sjgfi S 3-2^ ^ rt N M P® o rj-po- o : ft© g’i « m bC® ©.9 15 miM CT . 6 II ® a a .9 « 25 a» fl& p” © !§■? <500 p 3 9 ■aunt* a © © © 9 P P P 5 2 o 2 p*222 HHH 1 p 1 © E pc’s ! 3 ©-9 O © © o'© £ ^ Q M'S © *o 5mm REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 561 C5 00 O *H © CO CO cooic I o TJ 1 Tf !^oid 50 05 oo 'dnd a a 53 0 O o ftp- P P 05 © « 9 wWhM* CM CO r3 rg P P P P P.O 05 05 ® V ® C5 §§S§ &d 05 00 05 *°!h ^ ° • 5 P.'S ft j) Q. fl © 3 o Or* v ' P. -© O d'd n _ q'w p 2 p 9 O P O p P. 2 P.® © ft© ft 05 S-< 05 P Q. 05 p, 05 w ft tc ft -© m -© 05 p +2 n -£ u $ u 01 H!C! w hiw ° .P CM CM CO ' T3_ r P "2 flr 2 p S p p p o p,o o, ft© ft© © © © © © ft© 0 , P. * Ph ^ Ta-g §1 ftg, 05 6-j * +■> CO © S © © Ot» CM CM CO CO rS • - P'S P'S p P e P o P o P p,o 0,0 ©ft© ft © © © © p ts p *2 05 P 05 P O 05 O 05 , O „ m O 0 S ° 5 *g, 0J fr4 P CO © O 05 O 05 cT c co* i-T OH CM rH in co iCCi--H L-OQt> -IC5»hN 5rfLOCO 5 C5 CO CM cm" >3 I p 5F P P 5g £ S5 -so « f? © P © o 2-P I O <3 P - «?3a np ® U.j~ P P,— r P h'Ji § a P - ! cc'o o ©• o Poi : o > | 0.2 5 ©r£ ©^ OO _ 05 w ^ ■ PJ K p- © rt'cc P'P-P a ©H ill o a o P ._9 P, n p- H 'S'g ® P ®2e ©^ o ® ■ « pi 1 1 g* Opj O- O * 'C g 9? n r-4 P S e3 > - © C b£ h i tf £ © .d © ? ®U0 -tT 6 t> Si : : : : p : : : : Es O O o o o 'C-SP-S O p o 3 3 o ©„fcOOC bps o «S. fcJbfcr fSV 6 6 0 d d e3 S PPJ JP dP P’P o o o o r d r o-o! r d .5 ^ * ® P3 ” d o * fc d - d p i S MS 9 tlj . o jd d - aS^S rP P 3 rt c 3 P d P © w a a I ®4J+a 5 o o 3, o O d p ^ • d__ ©rM © d p a ® sx . s a a fee si d* ; st ^o'ccT 50 g lOMHClS odd d"o « d d d d-3 C 5 S rt cS es-H I £ \siss; “§§►§!§«- fe 65 « o d 8 §!^9|1 ©"PC £ ®SJPP 25§| gf/MOQ p a a a a o ©mccccccO 1 05 S O 05 : f cS , c:'c 3 j h b a d s s a jCOCO PcQCCMCQ .p '3 'S *0 33 '« 'n 'S gaag • ■ • • d ■ ^ ^ O c O O O pj g’p’p p 5 P. ^ d ^ C5 q ^fetsio 9 P p a,«i« fcesc&c £ £ £ d P P III g|® -d • p5 >» ^ d o o a & IlSpJ Mo Kj O Pi 0 s * ^ £ 0 *11^ il!!!li| g © 9'nr , p.2 « «ssca ^ § Jills "o ° 2 bC°_l ^ o p 0 ©^ 1 ^ . -d'S'S-P^ p,° | § 9 * *-*rfc n'O ® § o | © © © © bt^o bfi^© cs'd P'S fee a fc£ a m co S. Ex. 72 36 CLASS C.— ARTICLES WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY MANUFACTURED FOR USE AS MATERIALS IN THE MANUFACTUR- ING- AND MECHANIC ARTS (DUTIAR LE) — Continued. 562 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. pnnod -moo pun opioods jo ^aoi'BAi nfro um aopsA pv — - m — - eo tccocoto CM CM t- 00 NiniOf O o rH.ci Mmtto ■-T t- kO O -k* ^ P 9 p §& "© © go •3 ■ 'p p 5 p p o P o P P.O 0,0 © & © * © © © © p.® P-® © o © a © © © © (M CO CO ©3 ©3 p g s 2 O © O P p-S p-S © p*© © © © © ft®p<® x ^ -+-» « S-J Gfl P'S P'S <© P a; P o CsfCQlOC^ lONNO OO rH O h* CD t-O NH050 < CO CD rH I lO CO ^ OO t* P'O'C'd o ft li ^ O P oS« £3$ -© © © gj© jg » a a a § ® a & © «9 .© O © be o P P © P i— © 'p 2 o'S P CS P * loo® iO nH ^ I dodo iSSIS r©P35-=5 © *3 © © © © © ■©,52.2,2.2 <£3333 a a a a ^CCCCCQ!/! 6 o ©.© POPP « 3 2 JS •*3 ” ^ © © © 54 l 5 © © © 03.2 - ,2 ^3333 ®-s a a a a « ©CCOJCCOJ S* REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 563 oo o 05 O wodo iO co ic P. p" 3 AP< © as "p p © © © © lO t© PP p g o P ft® u ^ © u ft© a g © p © © •p 'p a p p P o ® ft © © © ft <=c -g g p © © © PP a p p p © o ftft f- 1 © © © ftft p p © © © « pp’a'p p p p p P P o o o o ftft ftfty y u u © © © © ft ft ^ © © © © g -U -g g p p p p © © © © y o « • P "P P P p P o ® ft ft e . 1§ CJ o T-i O (M 05 O OOOt^iO CO 1-1 CO CO CO CO iOt» of tH Of CO cfcO CO ^ ofl>f I 00 *"* ' CO co lO T* efocf t* o 00 05 CO o o co S oo o to oo t* in to ronoiH f~- to tO tO O O 03 rH «o inof to oft" ©100 m rH cn tH rH ©I 0-1-2 t g 5&I-S © o£° -S^ -«•* te -P3 O ^ © y y~S -P-hTO-S © ©P e8 p © T? p •Spa £ p © r- ©^rH Isgi gss-s © •* g P p o-2 . >■• ft "o * ! aUas •h a ® ® . g « © r a ft3-© ® *g' ir-p''® °og § g S- ® t4 . * £,2 g-3 p- 0.2 ^2 s tSsSS-S §<1 a S i ® | Sif.' g © ® : « s-g g g § ^-p'® ££■§ § ft£ p g hO^ * <3 S ?r,‘ B 'o’o • ® ®P3 Wi r ® .S , © +s P p - © • >rtj © So© § g, R p R P 4 • pP C3 ft fc&o gp © g WJ - • rH P - 212 i's'ScS oTB :S l-2 © o 2 !p o -*2 : gp a ' a 5 o ' ® 2 S p • g ©,? , » • g ft_ 5©n •- © © s © p 4 -3 3 a 2® ■ So® o I i.-^sa Nlill *^^3 a 3 ,-a ® » ^ § © .a O ftE: rfS .®o£ci®3 , g*CJ _§ p">.Sf* Ms* g g g> M P p.S«H P P <1 I P 3*1-5 ^ P hi o P pa 1 HI ~ ..J eS>9 130 oa * *P 2 ©*P |H|- ! ? • o'! d| 9 OO ^ o 5^ © fee pg 3 ^ ft© _ft y q © ©aP *p -*p bs s © p - >r2 w o ftp '3^2.2 t o ©_„ © ©-O).— s’® ft© £7 © © •p © ©33 g g ft>^3'g m p a rt OrP © I Pgp£-3° t2® *P a ©5 tp © §a *p * © g 3*2 p _ p © ©P! ks ’3 p . . _ ft 3° 2 2 « o Cl c3 eg w •loo • • ra © ; • yrs o 63 S 'p'p-S 3 oo co p 'S ft ° p S §g’ ©•P *• rl - © © g © u o hj a g c3 hE O rt y p©n &J0.2 ® ® B.PP3 - © ft.2 ® y © O P) te ^ p P , o p © 5 © It'^s p pj b. g +i y P . s «* > ® bfi ^51-9 P ci .rt rP © © © © § y y =« t> > ft2 2 ‘^P’PS ^ P P £ P P p t>t> .1 O* -®t3 & P 1 ® ® ft 'P tH n © p ft - © © "p © © © o © © o a © 'P'3'P'P g-P n3 sr.o 5-9 ti)p3 -Sg © ® • m rr ISfllt 2 P) bd ^ © •3 ^ p r\ y © ©t3 © , I p ^ - eft • G> © ^ *i«1g ^ii ® 153 p ^® p Si & b © ■ w l P5 yP .2 3- Eg ■PP _ p R g © rtg; m P-2 p g © yPJ © y © 3 * ©o’? o 9 .® O O £ eft rT) r— T U- £-< ^ eft" O ©O lllilllll 1.9 g ©1 fl'S3- 1 ° S-9 y7 ©WO g _r S © © © W pi |hoooh £ I £* '£ af ^ S |i g fs ® P fH ft CLASS ('.-ARTICLES WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY MANUFACTURER FOR USE AS MATERIALS IN THE MANUFACTUR- ING ANR MECHANIC ARTS (RUTIARLE)— Continued. 564 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. pnnod -moo pui? opioads jo inai'BAinba majo^BA py <* cd os o i cm P i CON' P'S SO -3 -3 -3 33 p p p a DPP 9 o o o o pp pp U f* u u © © © O PPPP oa a: co « © as © as © © © © ^ Oo* 00 O' O' © OQ P u © © P O. U aJ © u p 'pp;, -*2 ® osP-S fl-£-£ fl P ©OP©© © © © © © HC« «00 N-f ON-f © h 0. Q, © o. ® M ’+» © -*s O 0 © o © o © ©^© o' o’ © © © © pp © © o a 2 O'-fi -O <»■ pg s£ O cs © © OT3 ^ s o w 05 CO HHNCO -^HfOOO l> id 05 ^ ca io t> 05" oo oT ®" oo t> ® ® 05" 05* CO* « © >•.© o n © c3 37 > > © © u u 3 3 « O A.* bC© -OP g ° © © O © d 3 3 a a cS o3 s a a ® ©| a o g . ° © t?>3 > pS 8 a p t>S>S ,0,0 33 . © © © :ppp , © © « . p p o r-l CM CM ' WfbfibD 3 r. 8.2 § a - o « g p tc«r5 g g TV© © © W)© © © b. P © © > 3 £ K 0 o'® © ■ 9 p p p © 0.3 CJ c3 © 1 2 ©"«"© a © © p © rp ,r © © © ^ o .2 .S w g 7! *3 ^ I? 3-tl-H CM p as gglisS a « m © © 2 K fa"° £ > 3 ,2 0 33 p3 (O'© © © 43 43 <0 ® o o o -°z a * a 5 ©-3-3-3 o. s ggo® p, M c4 c4 d ~ .ooa © © P 3 CM CO >s>s ,0 33 £3 P rt £ -T »-H ro 71 o Sj^S|33 Mo|oa§ S . ,lrt T«< o >s tt- Url CM CO 33 £ .3 ©- 0 , 0 ^ 3 :^ rp goorn © bS-hn > a v, © © © 2 ^ ® > > > a ^ o — — o P — - - _ © ,3 P .3 s|e© 3! I P P . © O 33 •T — •SCO r* >5 CM -2 « a®2 > || ill «a PH 5 © r~s a x © o'© I ©^ = p a 2 >^a S^p P O .3 P'ttp SO^ So® Mo® ©!Z(^ REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 565 CO CO o o co o c$ 3 4.4.© , © , ©r c? cr m it co * 00 u u * Ci © * © + © © q.o.ftd m » g 03 to *a -4 ■£ " scsSS® ®®uooft ° ° o io o o rl O ■d a 3 © . p.-e d . 'd 'd 'd -d a a a a a c3 ci c3 c3 c$ 'd rs *d Td nd a d a a a d d d d d o . o . o . o . o . ft*? ft-g d--e &*? Or£ cdt l d tl d^dLd © © 00 © CM ^ CO I CO CM CO O CO > CO © CM CM CM » CM -H TH cm a © o cm ^ ^ I— OOO CO © i-Tr-T o co O CO CO © IQ GO CO r-i COCiWHCO CO CO T* CO CM OlOOON 'IOC5HH © o A** o O fl a CM CM fcl tJD . 2 .2 S "3 § § § S 8 © 43 43 .2 © © _ a.©§ 43 H« > © © _§ >>% o o * 4>4>;d * 03 03 © © © 4143 43 O O © .2.2.3 ^?oo I ©'d'd d 53 a 3 S 2 » CO *h C5 Gj C3 O 3 +h ® ** ^"o 2 SS VJ O © 5/ 5 o «2®o3 ^O.S d MO a £s O T* © >.'.2 ^ C£*H CM CO ,S 43 .Safes’ 3 * bX)04343 43d! d ©ft«M«MP cS 5 §3 go © © •S'd M ft 3s <*§ 41 | . 8 - a 4) © £ >> d eS 9 o d! . © I s ®'o 03 y a^r I© •g 2 £33 d > d._ es 'd a® u 2 © 3 33 O c3 a a < to d 043,£J © 4S u ©3 «, o o *n © r •• d 5 m© » _ ©' od©: © © ©-ScH g .as g g > 5 © ©Ph d O 43 ~ o •a « "d ©" © g a * 5 © © d »d3 d -d « 6 _> ft |1 si° Wd«1 - 2 o« v -CH d © 5 : a-S Jss ■§ > 2 . *© «M +-> ©71 3 © o I M 4^ «i o © 2 go co r ‘A © rd © > --’3 ”3 dt> t> p, ft » ® 'd s 1 d -d 3 « I £ CLASS C. — ARTICLES WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY MANUFACTURED FOR USE AS MATERIALS IN THE MANUFACTUR- ING AND MECHANIC ARTS (DUTIABJLE)-Continued. 566 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. •69 ^j pnnod -raoo put? oppads jo (^naiBAinba raaiopjA pv . O Oi ©5 00 lO ' O -J ->* rji CO r-i H p p p p p p P floflcnag 3 9 3 3 0 3 3 o o o o o o o p. p, ft a, p. p, a, p p p p p p p © © © © © © © P += PPPPPPPg g ©©©©©©©yg SSSooSSoo © © © O O U © Pi Pc P P © p .£ .© hJ © © © o p p p p © © © ppp S p P c3 « « .© ® irJ'NOOtCOOCC lO rH C- O CO < cT i>T iff oo cd oo i © © rH ©©00 00© TT 00 rH © rH © © rH © © t> cd>cc^oo IC CO* IO of rH 0 ~ irf rH COt* © 00 H ^ © • h* tt CO © &p ^©° p fcOD © O P P ® © g Wig , a p p •Poo ® 1 . p ” © 2 ©.a 53 a © 2 -££ © Mffl £ 00000000 gPPPPPPPP a P ' P P P P f | 3 3 3 3 h w . s c a p s s ■ o o o o o o ; pftftPftft , u p P P p P •©©©©©© ; PftftPftft • © © © © © ^ 'a a p q P bm g u s u o o,S ftO O O O o p tjc m to t> co © © bfi M bt fcX) tr. g P.9 .2 .9 .3.9 x ©ppppp © P © © © © © p P © © © © « o X “p no © © © ©•cp'w S J Ih f&S ®4" Mi S*s s E|§ £.p p r-p © ft OP ■ rt ® © J,S.§-2 ;h - +J +3 +J « « M 3 fcrOoCOOPo a 3 9 3 3 3 ® P PPPPfl p P P P P © © w ~c3eacso3©P< 3*00000^ Kw-gaoot^oo® P © ^ © C 3 P©©©©©©© P o o o o o o O JO ts "c3 Is "cl c3 el g PPPPPPPPp ©©©©©©©©. | ,2 ,2 j2 J2 ,2 j2 j2 ,2 o q’S’ei’S da's "S 'ej c3 © gt>t>t>t>|>t>l>t>p * * 2 ° a csp © 03 © P CO P © O © p-p 11 ° a © 0d> JS «5 § © ©'g p^ -2-3 .© © © p mil ©-P o ° ® 2 ^p'S © p . © fl S3 © P -P C3 ro ^ *ci ^ kyj 073 .ts teS “ §^|go S br^< © p ‘a .5 £ >>® P 2 go© J'fs.'s SSJ®P © o a 'S © 5p^9§ -O »“ftg« ■§ W>®.2 S ^ a 2 p g ^3 w _ p i.&i’g ig’Ss’a Soil's slug £ 33 © © © n W o rd P ..P l! 3| ^ _ ! 'Sc » 2 iiggi|ss , I ^cg -p 3p 9 p J2 -g b£© .2g* d 2 p p •O P « © >. p !& w . © p-2 B « .H'p ■*■> a a a REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 567 ■g :-2 add © © © © © © ^ ?h f-i © 0) © P CO C OH t> CO CO O 0 s CO s • ^ CO So 05 m 01 O 00 0 h co n • 0 0 S- w q. > '5 .2.5 q tc ^ r °J 2 05 o © o p 2 a g | a © © ©p o © © Li li '*-13 %% isa «■© .. £ ©=« alp a 0 © bcq © ISMsII* '“a 1«S'S.S' ,SgS5§£‘ S 4 ® ^ 2 ® I p © a 2 o 5 J .0 U -3 cS ® P © Li r-T © Li ad p, c i-Sg.i®£§*6 5e«-?*«S3 £ ti P 2 J3'a42ocsq«353^0s MS ccm|pqpqqmPhO a . | a« 3 Zee M SdSil” fwfeia- •Sa'StS'Sg : s^jjf a § 2J.2 § |3 I H -2 | g2 © sp g.q £.2 © ^ ft^ ftp O fl © 0 O W) O GO M © -§.aj •— T ^ cS crT 2 © © a^® ^ ® © o.g ft w| ft 2 2 . op a e 3 ■ q o mis gsjss O CQ I1VG AIVD MECHANIC ARTS (TO RE FREE)— Continued. 568 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. I 25 & H v < U 5 fc < P w a H N < tm a a * N © a * * a a u H a i. a » « -c a w •sa^J pnnod -raoo ptre ogioeds jo ^n 9 [BAIItba U 19 J 0 [BA p y ■-d ^ o 9 ^ 5 © © p, p © £ ft -s *=l P © © © 1 § : I : § SI1&1& © © © o © © PT 3 p p © „ r, _ p © © © © ftPr© ft ft 'P'P p p 3 3 O © ftft © © © © © w ■§■■§ .23 O* CO CO CO lO 02 CO O 02 rH co t- r^F-Ti>r 02 02 000 of r-T 3 3 S 8 S O WCOWH rH cox CO 58 Soo 3 5§ o o go's© -P'S P'S o o o o p CO o © p '-B .1 0 ««H •© o P a ® •3 g £g ft® S-9 a. rtf p P P eS p » 3S -pp ft© © wP .. © © ® a [s _ fctf© -p p ^ © ft.® © § ® 9*£m ®.rt -o’ CC <1 ® a S © £ s 2 m Htu 9 a “ o .as a hh bcS Ec-p © 188 6&fi .> > gwl 1 1 © © 9 ©«=a , a « s© I a - © © © n © © 3fl 009000 oo "O'tJ P 3 rS'0’0'0'0'- a 'P'P ■|cccc §ofi 3t3 13 •ss g & S o .2.3 s © a jp © « © p-^ rt p ”,® a ©po 2 fc^o-2 © u 1 ; ftg a o ©A I p«a IceJs^WoSutf ■p C p fc. P S C 4 O Tj? P'S s g P Pi c a; \\ gs © ft a © « h J i< fl' < 1)0 © c ft 0 ? ft© . O o -as as a a P 0 o o ftp,, a ©2 • j- • © © 2 +=> If -* 3 0 , 0.3 a a a ww oS®s _® ® ft© © © g g © © ® © "fl"S © © © p,ftftp, © © p OOl-iOlOO ° ° o WiO»NNM NO rH -0-0 9 a P 0 O O ftft a p © © ftp, ; r 0 !9 ;i : .2g§p g :g<=<§& s o « o ©5 »!r ■0 p -0 p p tn p - © . © © © © ft ; ft© ft© O .OON jo f 0T3 0 0 0 0 O O ftft ftft 0 0 © © O © ' ft 0 0 . 2 $ ^gs © ft HWO C~ rH -0 ’ p aV |g§ ,ClO h W CL Qa© fH PH ® ® Ph Sap © © MHaninootr CS®®H(MC HjTrjT t-T ©" vjT CO* ®" U0~ © t>VNr CO rH O IH 1«0 to 05 CO iH CO rH 05 05 O g irT (M g r "‘ g2 (M 2 0 -0 « © >s 2pj t>.2 §8 ftp, © t© a-o 0 a a o o © 0 © of g 553 s a fcs 9 P 3-_ ftO ©5 ® > 1J mi §S - 0 _ 0” © © ® OS 00 ® 1 © rH < OVrOHH' rH 'g WfcOO m ®o® °: rt H 3 ca o « S S 3 £ J*s „"dHfc shph a . „ -g §2 g a ®| go I 3-2 2 0 0 - 0,3 © ©03,0 9 ® swoooooW PhPh 57*0 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 571 NIO O Hi CO 03 00 o 06 irf c5 05 CO L- CO O 03 rH P-P« LO o rH 03 o o a d © ^2 00 £*• OONOO CO < o co co co •— > co o < 00 CO OO^H rH < • rH COOOOO ) H< tfO 00 I HI lO 00 rH I CO C 5 CO * of cT oo of CO o as LO uO H rH t> 03 l> CO »-* O Hi CO lo erf IHC5C500 rH CO C5 00 03 C5 C* OC O CO rH H 1 t'— |>lOiOC5 tH(N00 C5H I O Ht^OO OlO' rH 03 H CO < rH LO 03 00 l> lO CO O CO rH 00 LO COOOOO Of 05 rH rH CO 03 LO 03 fci :w>*.9 ^ 43-3 ©ga ►.r® © 'a -w> p, © © =22 © >/3 sc )lS y .9 oo d £ 2=a © >5 «ft ! uo r a © =© © ° a II II 3 4| aj © tf ZA ^ a-® ® 3 a !=§ a a .-' 1 = 1 ®. | • a© s b _® > a^sj © ? 5 gS*aa a ro © 5 = 1 $ i “ isle's j © 55 g ® a a © a ft a - a © © o © ^111 1 3 © t. ® cS _ o •2 5 >>ft§ a 3*a .aft £344 ft C-. 09 © p 53 °-a S§ .2 ® § a a.a xn t* •a o | 9ft o 83 © © tea © .9 9 2 -©.g Oft ©^-9 -® § © ©.Sp ©44 *" Jill 5ftoc« ft m ©ft 15 32 w Cm i 4 © © ft ■ a © a'® oft © ®ft © © © ft - ‘ © ©”3 Lj © ®aS«^ ® '.9§t-2"§ iftH ® g © ftftft P <1 £-§. g a J '**'3 a g 3 cs ® a a a« a >.Sp> 'S’ 5 3 1 ft h a o £ o © a ►, •§1 9 18 ° fto © 8g! 'a - ft 343 -a 9 a rt — |-s§a 3=23 © *9 44 ®a?- i a S a ® 1 1 o © © I -geq I ^3 ft ftft ill uo © a -o r© • » a ® © o § 3=a=g .9 : a gal © a . 92 i |p^ in ’©S^lgag .’Si'5 3 .ftftp ©QP 9 31 aft >> ,® : © ft • a © © © -I a ° I pa la a CLASS C.-ARTICLES WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY MANUFACTURED FOR USE AS MATERIALS IIV THE MANUFACTUR- ING AND MECHANIC ARTS (TO BE FREE)— Continued. 572 EEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TBEASUEY. punod -moo pun oppads jo ^napAinbo moaopA py Cl ^ Cl N mto cidrid I'g ts 9 'ts go •§ D Q. • P 0^.0 ft.® © ft aSja © O p,® p a p p o o pp p p ® ® ® « HWoW ' w o o o o o f* r O' r C^ f O ^ a a o a o o JZJ £ ZH Z3 o3 O cs cS bUPibDbS) u u u u © ® © © -w p,p.p,p (M 00 O CO 00 iO 05 rH rH* rH 00 O 00 05 ift < t^iOlOHOOi (M CO f csf oo o co h* co o C'T >'£ © o 'p © .p-p © i 3§ 13 ' a 8 _o ® a .9-3 ’a o a* © Til SS © £ 1 o o o o o o °9pU a ” 'm ."JflO -© o p © I'© . . . . * a — t* a a * p ■ ■ rSS §S p'§b § -S« gilQO.S.-e .cQO o © ¥ 2 © _ - - o © © Q a g ° g «,© «M «8 o tJC as a Oao®oo p Baaaa • o a - - - p,tc Is So « a s’S c3^ S i-o-dts-aS - J-ftS-S S a o o © J-H Sou^toH ©Jz; ©fa a ® ©•3 - g "3 o |P o « o _, a © S^oo w o 3 So .S-©. — a « so « © Ppj faHfco REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 573 h®m e*i 'O 'd 'P crnn BSP o o o ft ft ft u u u © © © -M ' g g.g © a a a t-t © © © © © © © ft ,r P . 0 §a ft ft ft O •ss-w a a p a a** p © © © © © © © « © © ^ t-i ^ ftt* © © ©in © ftftftc- ft 'p'p 3§ © o ftft Ih h-P © © a ftft® 55" rt a © IS P o » ftp >4 _ © l5 ° i a u i © © > « ft l-l t4 © © ftft S3 3 CO CD O CO 3 3 ' rH CM COC5010 CO O) CO H m m in t> m co 00 rH t> t> 00 CD rH%* 00 CO 00 co m O 00 t> ^ co m < co m c ^ csfef CO (M co oo co osmwo CO CJ ^ OOOHt^ *-i oo oo co a i> 8^3 oo t* m co in Tji l>MO 00 05 in" oo o co"*^T oo o co"in* rH 00 cm m cm i> > a* •A m o o a ^ § © © fH H * 8 ? ■U 2 p © ©os 2 R S'p'p a S £ bt d p P © ®'g © 42 ft^ ft © *? -© 2 g .114 p I i if o ^ © *? boo P £ s? K *1 C5 ^ j P o — . « §< 2 : Pi c •+S © N jM’S '3 rp +3 S' °«w > o ®'® .GO S .a g © « 5 X pa -S © © "5 tn a - a bil £3 +s p- rt p ’•*3 © *p 3 ll ©' s - 'SS'S .'p I! . to ■nS • ® £ ©.2 © . 2 g* •3 ® * a © be ■Bis ®®o s S^J I ! s ■fl p ® gi'S © be © © _ -*3 ® o V >> g g o a ^ g Pi g « ©^ 'S « a 0 c3 0) TJ ct p © ©^ c 53 0 -S O C3 o« a w WWo GO 3 o O *3 0 Pi O be p 'p. Pi ill a a « o P) REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 575 1-1 NH C 4 CO CO J33 2 » Pft an ft P P ! ^§3; h 3 • ca © aS ft2 e.s§S 2 £ a •g 0*1 ft -So °-rO O CS nS 2 * u flS cS « «ftHH u H •9 a S nS 2 I Pi "5 © (■* ft r P 0 / eS Oh © H ft to jM © CS O pa a o P2 O 3 'tc^ “sa rtft 3 n a ©§ .s^ ft © § SP ft 3 © B ft S ;. — MANUF ACTURED AUTICLKM READY FOR CONSUMPTION (RUT 576 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 577 lO tH s § ‘ nd t3 nd no t 3 no n3 'a 'a 'a 'o no nd no P»s tn> nd S ^ # § PI 03 s a P a a 9 § 9 9 a a a a a a a a a a ti *i s’ik, no P © no a a no no p a a a £ 1 Pn> 0 nO nO nO nO no a a a a a a a a a a ggSS a ft^ft »® ®o p«fl« M ? 0*4® ftl^ ®0 ftt, ■g» © « ft^ |8 3S o . ftrt Pi 3 © © ft« 3S o.3, ft-g ft © 53 § p © ® © ® © © © © © 3 ©3 © ^ ©’-p ? p « 3 p © p © © © © © ftp ftp © © © © ©gg§ # ft® ft© © 33 3 O . O . O . O . O . ft -2 ft3 ft-a ft-g ftg papa©apP©a ©©®©©©©©g® ft © ft© ft© ft© p.© ^O-ScD^OP^CP^G ©no ©r© ©nO 'g ft 0 ft a ft a fta ft -g ft- g ft -g fta ft aftaftaftdftaft © 3 ® fl © a go ©° o 10 ®>o go gia © O ©o go gin gin gm gm g® a cs 1 © o ■«J< A ®g£«-.a •§ 53 j> § p g be e® be © no a a .s © ©3 •pm PnO © O © — * Eli o ^ 3 g p © *i 3 * © a j 3 „nO,a o 2 <0 © ,03 r-S 43 CP rf|g-gg. .saga l&i|f SpP, a>*3^ s 1111 O ™ -P. §*0 a % Q - • , 'd „ o 3 0 __ C3 O » g ll 3 ft® s^fS-g ©"a 53 g § 3 ae 3? +»^ - © pH Q. O.Jh ft^ a x © ® ^fee-ano a.2> 53 ft 5s o3 2 © ft,’ 3 3 .2 l2 £_ 1 -r, 1 3 -2 ° £ ce ^O n i «-§ a a o 'no © *g p a a a a3°J?g-a i| Ill 0-3 .a . 3 -S 3 a 2 o e-s ® £ Sf#3. 2 © 2 S O'© ® &3 o © © ft I! S3 J|t> ,© o Is nd a > > > CLASS MANUFACTURED ARTICLES READY FOB CONSUMPTION ( DVTIAB I, E) -Continued. 578 REPORT. OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. ■S9^.\ punod -raoo pan oijjoads jo ^aei'BAiaba ox 9 joiba py 05 lO , d , c!'O r, d'T 3 r 3 r d'T 3 r O't 3 i § g i i i i § § § 0.0 .O .O .O . O J O .O .O .'O . ft-g P'S ft-s P'S PS P+2 ftS P'S PS PS ©®©®©®©®©©©©a>®©©©®©® ft® ft® ft® ft® ft® ft® ft® ft® P,« ft® - 2 ©. 2 ©. 2 ®”©®©- 2 ©®©®®”©.£© sftaftsftaftaftaftaftaftaftsft gin gin go gin gw gm gw go gin go eviifinoMoo^inmin rHO)CO-^r-lr-(OJeOOOeiS O . P'S ** s © a p a ft 8 © 3 1 0-3 H -g & bD £ a 'O a •IS P 2 a’H I® £<3 § § i> ^ oo CO ^ rH rH CO © t* CQ O CO CO 00 IC © O CM © © CM " s £ rf 3 s s s $ REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 579 d a a o . ft-s g § ft? 03 & 3 d d d d d § § i § § CO O CD S3 CO O CD 3 CD O 00 0 28 00 03 CD 1 § CO Ift 1 ^ Tt< h low Cl 1 T# 4 lO § ^ 00 S I tn 0 Jgeiff CO 1 CO* 10 CD s£ O 'H f-H t> t> rH I 1OC0 I | 8 2 3 oo ci t> 2 & t> in 5 b O ■«* IM 00 rH CO o o 00 o 55 2 S 3 £ O Ift CO o S £ £ £ CO T*i T* iO O CD CO o c8 v §0|& - 1 a a.-S'ja © od si© SH ft g © ft© .53 a -g J©d s © | a -'ll © 8*3 | 2^ sag ft © ft _•? °d >> d © a -2^ 2 d ft 3 2 ftbC ft _ a S ® H a -rH a a bt^ © a - >?&§ d SP" a .3 So 0^2'“ £ a © a. a ®S s d &! o © - a ® © ®aa a © © •r-s l|ft 2£> § Z a §2 42 g © | • r-cg' 3 I © a ^s'slgg 1 US MS* 5-3 S S § ft® i® © © a2 « § g ® § U ®4h ,© Sm o © ftf> © ft d © o_ a Is aj^E aS © £f a Id 8 « ©^j © ©qs 131 8 a © © - -2° 2 a -9 l|£ |S§ 3 © M is*- 2 tto ©.a 1 © M bt) I ■ w go© ft ft© .s a«w ® © « 2 o'E © _ © L2 ©3 ®t- ® o © W ® P © © 'o ® l> o rt -2dd W O Q} tkfi .2 J dd § SKS § a^ <2 ft be I” a H OUk. S“g ts+j be - ft - be® © .2 2® leS'7 C3 . ft a •ci^ 1 © gd^ ®d g 4-> --4-> ® m a © a © &2| a © © d 02 O da© “421 5-l« gw ft d © § ,M 2 H fl e. ® c3 o ©J - d 2x) B’® © Sf 63 si's? W 23 © ^3 © ©2 o a ©. 0 © -33 M © w'S 3^9 o s aa “-3? a 0.2 ® ^ aa a wft.S t. © g g tn O ©^.2 © ©2 © § © p®3 * 42 8 a^W a ^bO ©a S.a a ® g’d s a“ .2 as O 0 00 . ©d e£ a s |l 8 ■ai Wi « ® © O'd Pi as © ftft 9 a © © © O ftft ao as 9 9 •3 ® - 2 .® 3 a Is ftoo ar s >> ^'3 » ic rH CO CO FH ^ § r> ? 5 323 t- W C 5 ■H?" CnT iO ONH IS « O 00 » w « S SSJS ss ®S8 £ «o eo 9 ® ® fj’oO o ft Scwft l ► 0>H «s © r9ft © © *9 > ® 2S ft'E -©ft a M © ft cs a & © ® 13 S . bcP h © «e « ft A'gftft * SPgg ° «Tga;3 *q © eS © © Zl'd © t£tc © ® ©ftft t< eP ^ ft ft 3 O O o5UOO « go a«' 1s|S § g|3 a a p- © S g'gti., 9 O © © © © , _ . ^ hrs 3 ft . 5.5 3— eS I s a © © ■ ©- S* M a- l«fe| ||af ■5 ? ft w -9 12 © oo a. © 9 ET ft Pm eS cS © fe > H © ^ « © 9 g ^ P| ft ® hi ® ft.^! “J ' 1 I eS >5 © ® ■S’S 9 9 9 a ®.g © (- O' .S 3 © * -2’c©' © ® es © 93 ->>* . at 'g'g as a u 1-2 * a © o i' 55 ®- ® 9 o © © "9 eS g >- 9 ft o 2 § I 5 >i^rs ao © ■** ft a> « « ® 9 ft © ftft' to I si a h « . « CS ft « ift g tt oOO O O © og p-l ®l 9 O ® >5 e 5o © © © ja®- o gO » 'Sg'o-sl’gg. 5 U s > j ? 2 S5 5 ® — o © M^^Oft ® ft e ft © 0^3 ® ftft^ u g © s , aci oooft >ift t ttA PQQ S-9 w REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 581 o o 05 CO CO CO iff© xf o CM CM 40 O CO 40 CO 4 £3 $i g§ CM CO 00 CO CO < I 00 •CM 00 C CO 00 X* C5 CM X* cft^ cfcf of of 00 05 CO 40 Cl C5 CO CO CO CO X* oo c4vr ph iff ^ • to • ^•d ^ g'f ® d-d © 3 3 t>j ■ P»s ’S „ • « ^ •3 P* a s o o © . © _a +> o .s a « a, © . _r © 'd 'd'd © © d b j^a © p* a © a 1 -© « a tra P n-T ”•2 ii 1?S-1 I ft °2 e g “ o§_-®2 | S°o«S^ § |£ © ©nf© SSfoSJI&S, ®ife W p o3 w be ® • .9 a ca >» -2 £ 9 , § 03 p pr& g 3.JS * a © a -d ft bC© B'd a. 3 © ggS -ft©^ .©^5 S’© 2 © ® cS ft£ ^©'d-S© 'd a© ® £ ^3-2.0* .9 (=1 © U — c3 ® ® f** B a © 2* © ®^s +^rd © ^ ® ® © © 'S t>5 0 > g'd^ C Hr-T-tJ -© tf^a'd'd | hr©* 03 ejj-j S n rp \ rp S'g | d-d g « g ►» g |3 g g 8 , |&g , 3 S?SS^ CL f-J ^ Q, U S ft * g ft ®5 o ® © a *S T a ° © ft® 3 (M'd* ® m B*-* | © a © © ®H O n dd'B’Sta 'd’d ii'd'd © © © © © 'd'tf "'d'tf P £ : a. . II ti I o . be | bta |l |8 ^_o aT tn .a i o< .9 © 0 j>> 1 • ® ■?!! g-^2 •Sfi® 03 a be .9 •a | a o ! -- Sal •d 2 f 5 1u-a£ a# © a.S ® ©'3 § © a. a •• © © m cj Tj O^tud o d © v a<-3© 2 § o fe aT H ^ bd 9 2 1 ? i o® o ® be - © 9 © mr° s j ui-gi§ ©-a ^9 II S & ^ ri ° g /« h -a«g®a^ggg ° ,S © ? r 2 .9 © fl'g d ® -a ’i © d r s 2 ft \> o 2^1 -a §5 afUi-a rS-©0Q la "2 ® § J §9 W)05 . QJ ^ a , © I © m ® d-d 111 223 O u Pi •9o2 ^ 'S^^a'3 Aq’ ®l2£ r | -g8 ; S^ MCQ ’^ ! a © is h H Sn CLASS B. MANUFACTURE D ARTICLES READY FOR CONSUMPTION (DUTIABLE) — Continued. 582 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. •sayui panod •raoa pan otjioods jo inepuinbo inaaotBA py HCOt* «>©i«d 10 HI O P o fel sa »i> p a <£> © © © P.P- O IO ss o © a p , r n n S ©3,2 p.p.'®* op GO ^ ^ p P ftft © ©oo © OlOiO P.P. Ift o 35 o-e P cp a .2^ ■t-> 00 P.30 SS 55- S i© I eo05 r-T I ect>eo«r Olft o ss s cd'-n o' co co co 3 83 IS S fflcTef. 23 -33 33 Sg pft .S 3 ©frt ^ 1® P g c 9 ■g.S M § p-2 ‘fig lo.S B 1 £ «*3T. g * £ ||| ©42 g g 03 "eS © I- oo eS ^ 5 © ©M « © P of B3 P 8 I « "a ® lI'E © tsl? ®^CCO p ® g © P3 os © &** t o Pi © InO •§§ 3 a ^ I °a 3 'a 3"© © © i a © W) P-©5^3 B. . 9 I £ 2 « 3 ® cS g c4 ~ S' § "&.g ■& ^-S®" p§ © 3 i _ m © p rp H ft © © © .3 P3 « © P •P *- bt®~ O •? "in pa pa tx +» § a 2 „ -3 ■3 I & e S.g £.g- s OcsS iZ'* fc tx ■ o 2 © G j n B«-i O CCod ft of iron or steel REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 583 as co co 8 a 5 P © ° ftp. © © 0 ftft® so* © © CL © ©.7 -0 a I S & P H 'O'P a a 0 0 o o ftp. "ft ftft H* Hct' © M R o © © 0 0 © © © © 0 . 0 § § $5 S ft ft in m : 0 . © :.B 0 © © ft ® 0 ft© eo oo © © © © ©©©©£©©© ft ftft ft p.p.p. 04 © ftftft P+S45-U fe+J-P+J ©®©®ft©©© © © © © » O © © R R © Rfl R R R - -'-'©©5®®® © ioioort(N«ioin o CO 'C rf ^ 1-1 CO CO r-l 0 0 © © « « R R © © ftft o©> s 8§ 00 rH o • OOHCOO r-r I lO I-H CO l> O ft-ii ft . R R ©,© R=3 c *-' ■g-0 o © 0 t* ■0 2 - ft -o ArPi jP | ® gj S R §>! fS|S, fto « g.g P „ s •0©®S§'O®I MO :£ 2 O ^oft ft£ ns"® | ©'ft^'JS ,2-gfc si s 0-0 •0 0 0 ** 0 0 btg P.'S ® * ^ « g-g M-a 0 O ® S'® ® © 0 q © R ©-2 O'® ©03 °® • . a »So* 1 flS '3 . - £ g © ! % ® © O S««o 00 ° ft .-■« ca 2 o © <— i cc a gj'5 P^^S & ©2 \ MB g © R fe 0 ©^ ® b2 - © o.9 r 1 Mg«e ^ .g 0 03 -3-0 © .*0 Jj -S “ 3 c O 2ft ®nn 2 ®03 o © « as ts ® P 0 ■IgSrf h. re ® © w ft ® © © cG'd^cfl -© jj ^,1© o a § p.o -fH Pc ^ jooW te *.Hg 111 S|i S?|. Ba 5 I S £ SSl.tn® 1© o §30 *3$ ® 0 Pi Pi ®-§ 3g 0 © |-s Id ® fe ft P ® O bfi © 0 ..§ 22 0 0 £ O 0 ° A ® 3 5s ®^je- 0 Wr d . gVgtH gig .2 .2 o © P R-° © ^ >1-0 g'g a s=s gpp >a'E © 0 R rtS 0 „® g ° ^2-3 Sga © R -'P - O 0 0 0 ® ftS ftP ©- fl . «.S .0^3 ^ - QO ® 0 g 2 M w 0 m . © n r© p p 0 ■2m O O R 0 w © • a ° © p © p ©eg «H ® © m M « 2^2 'g ^ S 4^ Ci_l ^ p6»® P Rf .g . . P © gft © ®-0 Q.® 0 ©-£ S © ®^P O'M , as § u ° © g 2 -22 —I P 'g £E -O "K ■So -Mft fe-0 1 ? © ^'P -2^ 0 R ft© <£% -R -R p a ® g §i =i a * 0 © ►S, 0 0.0 © ©5S®0® ©/© p^MS»grfl W C3-|“ p ®.s a'g a t£ g © ^ a s ®"22'i i Is §’$ s . "■§!•§ lsl^ c © 0 a 0 M « © 2 n d ©«a0rd®©2a0P©- a-a 2 &s §.s^ § ®5 ° p pq pa Pn Ph 3 -SCJO^ o CIjANS D.-MANUFACTURED ARTICLED ItEADV FOR CONSU1HPTIOIV (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 584 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. cthe REVISION or THE TARIFF. 585 O CO CM ® t> id pi a a © © © > © © © o <13 tn © ^ ) . © © © ft ; ftftft in © in P. ft ft ft ©13 © ft • 'O'* I » '• 1 xf -CO ; o ! S ! § • 00 :S • 00 • • i t CO • » j ; ; ; 05 • 'CO • • • 1 ^ It • ’ ' r^T ! co • • • 00 • o ■ ©" • CM • CO • 05 • CO • 05 is is • 05* • CO • CM • • : jg i ® • i i I s • « ^ II • • • CO 'CO ■ CM 2 s 0 O © ft ft u © ®+3+3 © ft a p fttr© © «S°o ■*> p © © p © © © © © ° O O O ©5 © l ft ® 00 ® Tt ' in *© ^05 fcO o HCOHt-t- o o ©%*“ CLASS D.-MANUFACTURED ARTICLES READY FOR CONSUMPTION (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 586 BEPOET OF THE SECEETAEY OF THE TEEASUEY. punod -inoa pan oppods jo ^aotnAinbe arejoynA py s a , •Js Pffl at 0 s W © ® a f- © o ® 'C a a <0 © © ® © ftp, o o OS 05 CO oo >o co ao co im os CO eo (M So eo - ■>* a oo eo t-00 t- co a . t.\ c8 c- fti 11J. <9 d * o ft Ad >> .3 ©X 1 £ a « © 0«1 CS ® b © — Ci X e* w #— « p -5 -2 *5 00 - 1 S «-g p r p “ a © P - 42 wr S H © * £-§ ^£'3 P! 3 5 S ■ -g © © g p© « ® £ g§* p p © © © © ® o m 00 GO CO to of 5 00 o wooi> I g (4 w © •§1 .92 ill P’S © > 2 p a ® 2- a !-§§ Ill a ® •* J2.2 « g •2 © S" P 2 b- 3 2 (- ' ** — fl © W W REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 587 So NCOlOiCi 00 00 CO 00 00 T & CIOOOOOT)'^ O CjO 05 (N lO lO l> pH I a l g »-< CO O CO -T^ CO O O CD o NnHOONO rtCOHHOOO «e-oo id 05 00 Co* eocf b- o O K HH *T o' cTj£ t> T-l Ot^ OOlH t-( 05 CO 00 00 CD 00 o <*csf ^ CD © *3 o n • • • a d o o o a'P'O'P - 5 • • • as I! _ H3 05 »FH £ 2 . .*s ft §!■? p-p © e. i-i og® o ® g gSS > , S>? .2 ft P ft d “ © © «r© £ o C 1§ U — 0 •Pop go ^ a h., -'V-i r. — f^-> V. : ® 2 © "^ c® P J © « s »—3 * ^ © g 4?r-l^- «.ci f( 5 q o 'ca cs ^ S g-ft © © * ft pj .tfg nft 002 <5 fcO^ II 11 I 0 o .5 a jl| A 8 B p:— . © SAS cp cd * « 2 •«<5 © © © « ® OOPS REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 589 d I o bt ft O O fiP P CO « ocfocW o *-i < CO 05 oo t>r ^ (M < O T-» O T*4 83 o> t-ao (O o? ao d l 05 rH < CT) CO <3 ® 2 3 d .p-j a »— i © »— i P'S O p 0 ®S eg,S btft.g 3 bl£ br/© d«H «® P« -- ‘ bc^ ©^g- o © >i® r p _rt JL 3 ~ f-i * © O fl o o © ftft a : o.g r-j © § & eg"+s cfl © | a ft© ft T3 § ©| £ a 2*^ O ^ -r-J 0 CD 0.9 ! S ?•“ o i I SJ-" , Z&S I > ft - a 5 +s ]$**'■* i Sojg ! ft»o m I eg © u i|?S g u ^•|2ll-S d • • d © © o g n'©’©^ d d eg eg dOr© d a © * © o a a © a n £>©."© rz o ft d-d a a £ M ; 's.a 2 E r ^' r " ■ w w 'S g g oo o d S o c3 ^ „ o p 3 g h s-g-ggg gfjSS.? S^asgC © s’ft© © ° g^aes g © ^©3 o © © g ^ eg eg eg eg 2 ©,_ © © © © ” o bfibCbC.S O 3 « .9 . 9 .9 >> •S ©Id'd’d.-^ 5 •| |o 3 'i I a t; 3 n d d « d -~o O O d © aoooo 1 • a s® -dIC cC.9 1 -hd ts d r* d bfi a 1 . 1 . 9-1 •s ft © 3 f I | 90 OC^dsOO J2 d d i d 2 O 3 OO* bo # d '©'a © a al a^ p,® 2 3 ftpj ft-° © rgj 2 d g §,'© o w<© •© B'© >>8’? © w o ft O ° a l -d | §|3 *© , 9 P 3 ^ rt © lr o'eg ,®-o "© £ 'Cld © © >*§£ © s a w ll^dSi® ^ #r l >-4 ^ ri 2 g© 2 „ 5-< S O S 3 O^d - 4J t- ^2 a? O n ^ o <2a§S gWWP ® f-H d ft © CC 2d Epft! daoj- o g S •rl - ^© d^^r 3 I'SSf'S g|a gg CO O ^ C& ^ S fl lH .H CLASS E. — ARTICLES OF VOLUKTABY USE, LUXURIES, &e. (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 590 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. •sojbj pnnod -moo pun oijpods jo juoiBAinbo raojopjA py »0 S3 . . O J, & |li t-i © H P,® Pi U t-i © lO 05 i> o 00 HH OlO co icT co cT ocT eo io oo S CO o 5 3 is p ^ o © '-5 S3 g M §*» to 11 o’© a |S ©£ S S 2 P* © o © s ■a 53 ® » 3* P J3 -O t> CS p u P, .. O © . « o 'fjs I ® P-2 f £ s &£© © P-o ‘p. c,s a m © Pi a-^ o ©'a a ■© S's'a t- * aP- a r h >.P _<3 P-© &§ © o „S.2 Eo g SQfc o £ = g'E® a S a E 2 a « §.r*® gOP Pi S-§«.2 W ».So« ° 5.3 ®-~ 5 .2 ^h ® ° a ® rt o a a p.'att.a a r— . CC.'S ^3 S~:I g, .s >>ISs i © t- ° ®t-sPO ■a a P © «« a ©.a la 1* © © .2 2 ^ S 5_ o o'”* *2 as S3 ^ .. • 4 i|| -r!2 c 3 * p -2 p: g£ •s M -pe .9 P3 rt a a © pi ^ if © § ©_§ P O .9 - REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 591 CLASS E.-ARTICLES OF EtlXURlT OR VOLUNTARY USE (TO BE FREE)-Continued, 592 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, •eaipu ptraod -moo pus appads jo (;nop3Amba tnaao^BA py Bt w « n o «Scrt S ' q C5lC0 05l> O 00 Tf- W O 00 iOt-t^OOO I fcO ^§8335 Is O Sewing-machines Machines, tools, and machines not mentioned 7 Detached pieces of machinery : Sheets and fillets for cards 8 Dents or teeth of reed, combs, and mountings for looms (iron or copper). . 10 Other separate pieces : Cast iron 7 Iron 7 Steel 10 Copper 7 TOOLS. Pure iron 10 Iron and steel 14 Steel, pure (reaping hooks, files, straight or circular saws, and other tools n. d. 6 Copper 7 WORKS IN METAL. Cast iron, molded : In the rough 18 Polished or turned 15 Tinned, enameled, or varnished 14 Malleable cast iron articles 6^ Cast iron and iron : Not polished 20 Polished, enameled, or varnished 15 Iron : Tubes, any diameters, straight or curved 25 Ironmongery 22 Locksmiths’ work 9 Anchors, cables, chains 16 Forged nails, wood screws, eyebolts, ring hooks 18 Household ware and other articles n. d., of iron or sheet iron, heavy and other 10 Steel 13 Copper, pure or alloyed : Heavy ware 5 Works of art 1 Other 4 Zinc, all kind3 3 Lead (pipes and other articles) 5 Tin, pure, or alloyed with antimony (vessels, pots, and other wares) 3-£ Nickel, alloyed with copper or zinc 11 Statues, of metal, life size Free. 598 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (With dispatch No. 393, October 10, 1885.) INCLOSURE No. 1. I. — Tabular statement showing the specific duties levied under the general tariff of France. The values attributed to the principal articles in the tariff by the “Standing committee on com- merce and customs,” and the computed relation of the specific duties to the value of the articles. II. — Index to the same. Articles. Customs valuation. Unit. Duty. ■S6 o "A ANIMAL MATTERS. «n H > 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Live animals. Horses : Stallions Geldings Mares Colts Mules Asses Frcs Cts. 1 , 000 . 00 1, 600. 00 1, 500. 00 450. 00 500. 00 150. 00 Per head do ... do ... ....do ... ....do ... do . . . Cattle: Oxen Cows Bulls Steers, bullocks, and heifers Calves Bams, ewes, wethers Lambs Goats, kids Pigs Sucking pigs Game, poultry, turtles Animals, not specified 460. 00 305. 00 315. 00 160. 00 90. 00 50. 00 18. 00 20. 00 115. 00 16. 00 200. 00 do ....do do do do do do do do do Per 100 kilos . do Frcs. Cts. 30.00 30. 00 30. 00 18. 00 5. 00 ■ee Pr. ct. 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 25.00 5.5 12. 00 4.0 12. 00 4.0 8. 00 5.0 4. 00 4.4 3. 00 6.0 1.00 5.5 1.00 5.0 6. 00 5.2 4. 00 2.6 20.00 10.0 Free Produce , skins, <£c., of animals. 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 ; 22 21 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Meat, fresh, butcher’s Meat, fresh game, poultry, and turtle Meats, salted Meats, preservad in cans Meats, extracts of Hides, raw, green, or dried Peltries, undressed W ool and woolen waste Horse hair, raw, prepared or curled Hair : Animal, raw Combed, goats’ Combed, other kinds (rabbit, castor, 2, musk-rat). In hanks of assorted lengths (bristles) . Feathers, ornamental, dressed or un- dressed. Quills (for writing, &£.), prepared or not Feathers, bed, all kinds, including down . . 1, Silk in cocoons, raw and milled, dyed, sew- ing, embroidery, or other. Silk, flock combed 2, Hair, human, not manufactured Byssus of piuna marina Messina hair ( silk gut used for fishing lines) Animal fat, except fish oil Waste of fish oil and alkalies from the pro- cess of manufacturing chamois leather. Beeswax, raw, yellow, brown, or white ... Beeswax, waste of Eggs of poultry and game Ejjgs, silkworm ., Cheese, soft Cheese, hard Butter, fresh or melted .x Butter, salted Honey Manure Bones, calcined Bone-black Animal sinews, ears, &c Other raw products and integuments of animals. 1. 60 2. 32 1. 20 2.10 2. 10 275.00 000. 00 do do do do .do do do do do do do do 700.00 ....do do do 000.00 ... do do 100. 00 .do .do .do .do do do 320. 00 140." 66 150. 00 165. 00 275. 00 225. 00 140. 00 ...do ...do . . .do . . do ...do . . .do . . do ... do . . .do . . do . . .do . . .do . . .do ...do . . do 7. 00 20. 00 8.00 8. 00 4.00 Free 4.4 8.3 6.5 3.8 2.0 Free . . Free Free Frefi 10. 00 10. 00 10. 00 Free 3.6 0.5 1.4 Free 20. 00 Free 2.0 10. 00 Free 0.5 Free Free Freft . Fre.fi 10. 00 Frflfi 3.0 10. 00 Free 7.0 Free 6. 00 8. 00 13. 00 15. 00 10. 00 Free 4.0 5.0 4.8 6.6 7.0 Free Free Free Free REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 599 Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. TS «§ II w * 45 47 67 79 FISH. Produces of French fisheries Fish, fresh, sea Fish, fresh water Fish, dried, salted, smoked, cod, stock, or klipp-fish. Fish, others, dried, salted, or smoked Fish, preserved in oil, or pickled Oysters, fresh, young Oysters, fresh, "other Oysters, pickled Lobsters, fresh Lobsters, preserved or prepared Mussels and other shell fish Fish oil Whale oil, spermaceti, crude Spermaceti, pressed Spermaceti, refined Parings, cod and mackerel Whalebone, uncut Seal-skins, raw Coral, rough, uncut Pearls, fine (natural) Fish bladders, raw or simply dried Fret. Ots. 95.00 98.00 60. 00 155.00 240. 00 60. 00 275. 00 325. 00 240. 00 100. 00 96.00 220. 00 30. 00 RAW MATERIALS OF MEDICINES AND PER- FUMERY. Sponges, raw Sponges, prepared, fine Other raw natural products for medicine and perfumery. HARD SUBSTANCES FOR CARVING. 1, 600. 00 1, 600. 00 Elephants’ teeth and tusks Turtle shell, carapaces, &c Ivory and shell, imitations jSTacreous shells, mother of pearl, rough .. Haliotis, ear-shells, and others for working. Bones, hoofs of cattle, raw Horns of cattle, raw Homs, prepared Horns, in sheets 1, 200. 00 225. 00 2, 200. 00 VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES. Farinaceous food. Wheat, spelt, maslin (wheat and rye) in the grain. Wheat, and wheat and rye meal Rye, maize, barley, buckwheat, oats (grain or meal). Bread and ship’s biscuit Oatmeal, semoule (meals), pearl or hulled grains. Semoules, in paste (Italian paste) Sago, salep, and exotic fecula Rice, grains or in the husk Rice, cracked Dried leguminous plants and their flour Chestnuts and their flour Millet grain and meal Potatoes Fruits and seed. Fresh fruit : Lemons, oranges, and their varieties . Carob beans Other Bry fruit: Dry figs Raisins, apples, and pears Almonds and nuts Others 25.00 13. 00 40. 00 50. 00 115. 00 40.00 Per 100 kilos. ...do ...do ... do ....do do Per thousand do Per 100 kilos. do Frc8. Free . Free do ....do do — do ....do do do — do do do — do do Free . Free Free Free Free Free Per 100 kilos ....do do Free Per 100 kilos ...do ...do ...do . . do ...do ...do ...do do Free . Free Free . Free Free . Free . Per 100 kilos . .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do do .do .do .do Free . Free . Free . Free . Free . Free . Per 100 kilos. do .do Free . ....do ....do do .do Ots. 5.00 5.00 48. 00 10. 00 10.00 1.50 10. 00 5. 00 10. 00 6.00 5. 00 10. 00 15.00 0. 60 35. 00 65.00 75, 00 3. 00 3. 00 3. 00 6.00 1.50 1. 20 1. 20 6.00 6. 00 4. 50 0. 30 Pr. ct. 6. 00 6. 60 6. 00 8.00 I 5.2 5.1 8.0 4.0 2.5 1.5 4.0 6.0 5.2 6.8 2.0 2.2 4.1 1.1 0.1 18.0 2.3 15.0 12.0 5.2 20.0 600 REPORT OE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. 6 6 Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. a © P f-t 1! VEGETABLE substances— continued. 81 82 83 84 Fruits and seed— Continued. Frcs. Fruits, preserved in candy Fruits, preservedjn sugar or honey... Fruits, pickled or preserved, other A nise seed Juniper, laurel berries, figs of the cac- tus Oil fruits and seeds Seeds for sowing Cts. 250. 00 250. 00 100. 00 60. 00 Per 100 kilos . do do do do do do Frcs. Free Cts. *40. 00 52. 50 8 . 00 2. 00 Pr. cl. 16.0 21.0 8.0 3.2 Free Free 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Colonial produce. Sugar: Refined, other than candies Refined candies Molasses, for distillation Other than for distillation, containing, in absolute saccharine richness 50 per cent, or less. Containing more than 50 per cent Sirups and confectionery Biscuits, sweet Preserves, sugar or honey Without sugar or honey Chocolate -. Coffee, berries, crude Roasted or milled Cocoa, in beans Crushed, in paste, tablets, or powder . Butter of Pepper and pimento Ainomum and cardamons Cornel Nutmegs, in the shell Out of the shell Mace . . : Cloves Vanilla Tea Tobacco, leaves or stalks : Imported for the .account of the Gov- ernment. Imported for the account of private parties. Tobacco manufactured for the account of the Government. Manufactured tobacco imported for the use of private parties under special authorization from the tobacco administration. (This authorization is limited to 10 kilograms per annum for any one person.) Cigars and cigarettes Snuff and chewing tobacco Smoking -tobacco from the Levant Smoking tobacco of all other sources . . 63.00 ....do 90.00 ....do do do 250. 00 200. 00 200 . 00 100. 00 .do .do do .do do do 134. 00 do 172. 00 ...do ...do 172. 00 190. 00 600. 00 200. 00 300. 00 525. 00 415. 00 200. 00 4, 500. 00 490. 00 ..do ..do . .do . .do ..do . .do . .do ..do ..do . .do . do do .do do do do do .do 52. 50 56.50 Free 12. 00 25.50 52. 50 26.25 26.25 12. 00 19.0 13.0 13.0 12.0 156. 00 208. 00 104. 00 135. 00 135. 00 208. 00 208. 00 208. 00 208. 00 312. 00 312. 00 208. 00 416. 00 208. 00 118.0 78.0 110.0 35.0 104.0 70.0 60.0 75.0 104.0 9.2 43.0 Free Prohibited. Free 3. 600. 00 1, 500. 00 2, 500. 00 1, 500. 00 OILS AND VEGETABLE EXTRACTS. 101 102 103 104 100 Oil, olive, fixed, pure Oil, cocoanut, palm, touloucouna, illipe Oils, others Oil, fixed, aromatic Oils, volatile, or essences of rose or rose- wood. Oils of orange, lemon, and their varieties. . Oils, all other.... Gums European resins and other resinous prod- ucts. 105. 00 88. 00 78.00 1 , 000 . 00 120, 000. 00 ..do ...do ...do . . .do ..do 2, 400. 00 2, 000. 00 250. 00 ...do . . do . ..do ..do Essence of turpentine 99. 00 .do * Not including internal tax on spirits. 4. 50 4.5 1. 00 1.1 6. 00 7.7 80. 00 8.0 4, 000. 00 3.3 150. 00 6.4 100. 00 5.0 2.00 8.0 5.00 5.0 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 601 Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuations. Unit. Duty. oils and vegetable extracts— continued. 107 108 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Frcs. Balsams Camphor, raw Camphor, refined Caoutchouc and gutta-percha, crude Glue (bird lime) Manna Aloes . Opium Licorice juice Other dried vegetable juices 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 MEDICINAL PLANTS AND FRUITS. Boots : Ipeca Bhubarb Sarsaparilla Jalep Licorice Other, including iris and ginger Barks : Lemon, orange Lima Other Herbs : Absinth Other Leaves : Slune Others.... Blowers, medicinal Fruits : Cassia and tamarind, not comfits in sugar. Other, not comfit in sugar Lichens, other than for dyeing WOOD. Woods, common, building wood, oak, elm, walnut, sawed or otherwise, and other wood of all dimensions. Wood, masts, materials, spars, handles, oars, &c. Staves Wood, split, splints Wood, hop-poles W ood, stuffs and props Wood, cork Wood, fire, charcoal, and kindling Wood, other common Wood for cabinet work, logs or sawed, more than two decimeters thick, and ma- hogany, box- wood, and others. Wood, cabinetwork, two decimeters thick or under. Wood, odoriferous Woods, dye, in logs Woods, dye, ground FIBERS. STEMS, AND FRUIT FOR MANUFACT- URES. Cts. 800. 00 2 *) 0 . 00 260. 00 500. 00 130. 00 3, 500. 00 180. 00 Cottonf^aw Cotton wadding (cotton in sheets, carded and gummed). Flax and hemp, raw, peeled, hackled, or in tow. Jute, raw, peeled, twisted, or biaked (a) . Phormium tonax. abaca (rnauila hemp) and vegetable fibers not specified, raw, braked, hards, or com bed) (a). Canes and reeds, unman ufactored , 900. 00 350. 00 100. 00 275. 00 30. 00 150. 00 80. 00 700. 00 100. 00 70. 00 150. 00 120. 00 100. 00 100. 00 65.00 300. 00 50. 00 30. 00 180. 00 Per 100 kilos. . do . .do . do ..do ..do ..do . .do . . do . do Frcs. Free Free Free .do .do .do .do .do .do .do do .do .do do .do .do .do do do do Cts. Pr. ct. 10. 00 1.2 2 00 1.0 4. 00 1.4 8. 00 1.6 6. 00 4.6 240. 00 7.0 10. 00 5.5 2. 00 0.2 2. 00 0.6 2. 00 1.0 2. 00 0.8 2.00 6. 6 2. 00 1.3 2. 00 2.5 2. 00 0.3 2. 00 1.0 2. 00 2.3 2. 00 1.3 2. 00 1.7 2. 00 2.0 2. 00 2.0 2. 00 3.0 6.00 3.0 2. 00 4.0 .do .do ...do Per thousand ... do . . do Per 100 kilos . ... do ...do — . . .do Free . Free . Free . Free. Free . Free . Free . Free . Free. Free . Free . ...do ...do Free . .do Free . Free . Free. 0. 10 '6.' 25 1.00 10.00 Free. 5.5 Estimated ad valor em duty. 602 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. No. of article*. J Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. Estimated ad valorem duty. FIBERS, STEMS, AND FRUIT FOR MANUFACT- URERS — continued. Fret. Ota. Fret. Ots. Pr. ot. 136 Per 100 kilos. Free 137 do Free seeds for carving. DYES AND TANNINS. 138 .... do Free 139 do . . Free 140 ....do Free 141 do Free 142 Free 143 do Free 144 ....do Free 145 do Free and fruits, for dyeing or tanning. SUNDRY PRODUCTS AND WASTE. 146 ....do Free Vegetables, salted, preserved, or pickled.. 100. 00 do 3. 00 8.0 147 3, 000. 00 do 200. 00 6.6 148 Hops r 500. 00 ...do 15.00 3.0 149 100. 00 do 3. 00 8.0 150 do Free 151 do 25 38. 00 do 1.00 2.6 152 i Fodder, including vetch ....do Free 153 : Bran of all kinds do Free Jfl 154 Oil-cakes of linseed do Free 155 Bags and drills . . . .do Free 156 Tnrf and peat, for burning ....do Free 157 1 Other vegetable products and waste, not ....do Free denominated. MINERAL SUBSTANCES. 158 Marble : White statuary, rough, quarried, or do Free sawed only. Other, rough or quarried do Free Other, at 16 centimeters or above in ....do Free thickness, sawed. Other, sawed, of less than 16 centime- 15.00 do 2. 50 1.T ters in thickness. 158 Marble, sculptured, polished, or otherwise worked: Sculptured, modem statuary 100. 00 do 10.00 10.0 Sculptured, clocks, cups, inkstands, 100.00 do 15.00 15.0 playing marbles. Sculptured, polished, or otherwise 95.00 do 6.00 6.4 worked, other. 160 Alabaster, rough, quarried or sawed, 16 . . do Free centimeters thick or over. Alabaster, sawed, less than 16 centimeters 40.00 ....do 2.50 6.2 thick. Alabaster, sculptured or otherwise worked, do 10.00 modern statuary. Alabaster, sculptured or otherwise worked, 300.00 do 6. 00 2.0 others. 161 Precious stones, rough or cut do Free 162 Agates or other similar stones: Bough Free Worked 150. 00 ...do 45.00 32.0 163 Bock crystal, rough or worked do Free 164 Stones, worked, including building stone do Free and slates, shaped or sawed. • Stones, sculptured or polished: Lithographic stones, engraved, de- do _ . . . . Free signed. Modem statuary 10. 00 Playing-marbles, to vs 45. 00 do 15. 00 Slates, framed or unframed, for writing. ll! 00 do 8. 75 33.0 Others 75. 00 — do 3. 00 4.0 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 603 Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. No. of articles. I Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. Estimated ad valorem duty. MINERAL SUBSTANCES— continued. Free. Ots. Free. Ots. Pr. ct. 165 ....do Free 166 do Free manufactures. 167 do Free Slates for roofing; 3. 00 Per thousand. 4. 00 1.3 168 Bricks and tiles for paving and roofing . . . 3. 00 do 1.00 0.3 3. 00 do 1.00 0.3 169 Per 100 kilos. Free 170 do Free 171 do Free 172 Free 173 Marl do Free 174 do Free do Free 175 do Free . . 24.00 do 0. 12 10. 00 do 0. 012 176 Per 100 kilos Free 177 do Free . . * 178 ... do Free 179 Jet do Free 180 Amber, yellow ....do Free 181 Petroleum and other mineral oils for illu- minating: 18. 00 do 18. 00 100. 0 Refined 20. 00 do 25. 00 124.’ 0 METALS. 182 Gold and platinum ore do Free Gold and platinum, crude, in lumps, in- 90, 000. 00 do 10. 00 gots, bars, dust, and broken ornaments. Gold leaf 320, 000. 00 do 2, 500. 00 0. 8 Gold, drawn, rolled 300, COO. 00 do 500. 00 o! 2 Gold wire 50, 000. 00 do 500. 00 0.1 183 Silver ore do Free Silver, crude, in lumps, ingots, bars, dust, do . . 1. 00 and broken ornaments. Silver leaf do 9, 000. 00 Silver, drawn, rolled, or wire 15, 000. 00 do 500. 00 3.5 184 Goldsmith’s dross Free . 185 Aluminium 500.00 186 Iron ore do FYee 187 Cast iron, rough, pig iron for ballast 7.00 ...do 2. 00 28.0 188 Iron : In masses or prisms containing slags 17.00 do 4. 50 26.0 (at least 6 per cent.). 189 Drawn, in bars, angle and T-rails of 15.00 do 6.00 40.0 every dimension. (Pig iron, in bars, containing 6 per cent. or more of slags, shall pay the same duty as imposed upon prisms still containing - slags.) 190 Iron, plate or hoop, more than a millimeter 15. 00 do 6.00 40.0 thick. Iron, sheets and plates, millimeter thick 22. 00 do 7.50 34.0 and less. 191 Iron, for wire manufacture 15.00 per 100 kilos. 6. 00 40.0 192 Iron, sheet, smooth or hammered, more 23. 00 ....do 7.50 32.5 than 1 millimeter thick, not cut. Iron, sheet, smooth or hammered, more 20. 00 ....do 8. 00 40.0 than 1 millimeter thick, cut in whatever manner. Iron, sheet, thin and black rolled iron 20. 00 ....do 10. 00 60.0 plate, 1 millimeter thick or less, not cut to any shape. Iron, sheet, thin and black rolled iron 20. 00 do 11. 00 55.0 plate, 1 millimeter thick or less, cut to any shape. 193 Iron, tinned, galvanized, or coated with 52.00 ....do 18.00 25.0 copper, zinc, or lead. 194 Iron wire, coated or not, & of a millimeter 33. 00 ....do 10. 00 30.0 thick, or less. CM REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. No. of articles. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. Estimated ad valorem duty. metals — continued. Frcs. Cts. Frcs. Cts. j Pr. ct. Iron wire, coated or not, of a millimeter 33. 00 do 6.00 18.0 thick, or over. 195 14. 00 do 6. 00 43. 0 43. 00 do 9.00 21. 0 196 Steel, crown, in sheets or coils, rolled hot, of more than millimeter in thickness : 48. 00 do 9. 00 19. 0 48. 00 do 9.90 20. 0 Steel, crown, in sheets or coils, rolled hot, ot % millimeter or less in thickness : 52. 00 do 15. 00 29.0 52. 00 do 16. 50 32. 0 Steel, in sheets or coils, white, rolled cold, 52. 00 ...do 15. 00 29. 0 of any thickness, not cut to any shape. The same, cut to any shape 52. 00 ....do 16.50 31.0 197 Steel wire, white, for strings of instruments 200. 00 do 20. 00 10. 0 198 . . do Free 1 199 Scrap iron of wrought or cast iron 9. 00 — do 2.00 22.0 200 do Free 201 ... do Free ...do Free first melting, in lumps, bars, pigs, or 1 sheets. 201 Copper, pure or alloyed with zinc or tin : Rolled or hammered, in bars or plates. 169. 00 do 10. 00 6.0 Wires, of whatever size, polished or 169. 00 ....do 10. 00 6.0 not, cut, neither gilt nor silvered. Copper, gilt or silvered, in lumps or 1, 200. 00 --•do 100. 00 8.4 ingots, tilted, drawn, rolled, or spun on yarn or silk. 202 Lead, ore, and slag of all kinds in crude do Free lumps, pigs, bars, or sheets. . | Lead, alloyed with antimony, in lumps 30. 00 ...do 3. CO 10.0 Lead, hammered or rolled 36. 00 ... do 3. 00 8. 4 Lead-filings and scrap-lead . . do Free 203 j Tin ore, in lumps, blocks, and plates _ _ do Free Tin, alloyed with antimony, in ingots 257. 00 do 5.00 1. 9 Tin. alloyed, hammered or rolled 340. 00 do 6. 00 1.8 Tiu-filings and scrap-tin do Free 204 j Zinc, ore, crude, calcined, or pulverized... do Free Znm, in crude lumps, block-tin, bars, or . . do Free sheets. Zinc v rolled 40. 00 do 4.00 10.0 Zinc-filings and old scrap-zinc do Free 205 Nickel, me; regulus speiss do Free Nickel, pure or alloyed with other metals: In inp'ots or crude lumps __ do Free Rolled or drawn . . 1, 100. 00 do 10. 00 9. 1 206 Meicury, native .. do Free 207 i Antimony, ore, or smelted . _ do Free j Antimony, metallic, regulus 115. 00 . . do 6. 00 5.2 208 Arsenic, ore or metallic do Free 209 Cadmium, crude do Free 210 1 Bismuth ... do Free 211 Manganese ore Free 212 1 Cobalt, vitrified, in lumps or powders do Free 213 1 Other ores, not denominated .do Free CHEMICALS. 214 Bromide and bromide of potassium 400. 00 Per 100 kilos. 100. 00 25.0 215 Iodine, crude or refined 200. 00 .... do 400. 00 20. 0 210 i Iodide of potassium 1, 800. 00 . . . do 350. 00 2 0 217 Phosphorus, white 575. 00 _ do 50. 00 8. 7 Phosphorus, red 1, 000. 00 do 149. 00 14 9 218 Acids: Arsenious Free Benzoic 2, 500. 00 do 124. 00 5. 0 Boracic . . do Free Hydrochloric t 4. 00 do *0. 37 9.0 Citric (juice of lemon, natural or con- do . . . Free centrated, up to 10°, inclusive). Citric, from 10° to 35° 150. 00 .... do 6.00 4.0 Citric, above 35° 350.00 ....do 1100 4,3 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 605 Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. | No. of articles.! Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. Estimated ad valorem duty. chemicals— continued. Acids : Frcs. Gts. Frcs. Gts. Pr. cl. 500. 00 do 50.00 10. 0 Gallic (extract of chestnut and other 35. 00 do 1.20 3.4 tannic juices, liquid or concrete, from vegetables). 600. 00 do 93. 00 15.4 42. 00 do 2. 50 6. 0 65. 00 do 5. 00 7. 7 140. 00 do 12. 50 9. 0 50. 00 do 20. 00 40. 0 145. 00 do I . 10. 00 7. 0 do Free 415. 00 do 10. 00 2.4 219 Oxides : ... .do Free do Free Tin r do Free . . do Free 40. 00 do 2. 00 5.0 do Free do Free . . . do Free 220 do Free 221 do Free 222 Ashes of beet-root (dry) ... do aO. 13 223 Soda of varec (see wrack) do «0. 19 224 Soda, caustic 24. 00 do a8. 00 83. 5 225 Soda, natural or artificial (carbonate of soda) i Crude, 30° or more 8. 00 ....do u2. 30 29. 0 Crude, less than 30° 8. 00 do al. 25 90. 0 Refined, soda salt, 60° or more 18. 00 .... do ... a, 5. 00 28. 0 Refined, soda salt, less than 60° 18. 00 . . do . . . al7. 50 98. 0 Refined, crystallized (soda crystals) . . . 8. 00 do a2. 30 30.0 226 Natron 8. 00 do 2. 30 30. 0 227 Bicarbonate of soda 29. 00 ... do . a5. 20 18. 0 228 Soda salts not mentioned 20. 00 . do . 4. 35 21.5 229 Sea salt, brine salt, rock salt: Crude or refined, other than white ....do 62. 60 White, refined - . do 64. 00 2291 Sal ammonia, crude 48. 00 do a8. 00 17. 0 Sal ammonia, refined 130. 00 do . . . al2. 00 9.0 Sulphate ammonia, crude Free Sulphate ammonia, refined 130. 00 do 7. 75 6. 0 Other salts ammonia, crude 58. 00 . . do 3. 00 5 4 Other salts ammonia, refined 130. 00 . do . 7. 75 6.0 230 Salts of cobalt Free 231 •Salts of silver 1, 400. 00 do . . . 930. 00 67. 0 232 Salts of tin „ 170. 00 . do 10. 00 6.0 233 Acetates : Of copper, crude 50. 00 do 10. 00 20. 0 Of copper, refined powder 50. 00 do 14. 50 29. 0 Of copper, refined crystals 50. 00 . do 21. 00 42.0 of iron, liquid Per 100 kilos . Free of iron, concentrated 70. 00 do 10. 00 14. 0 of lead (sugar of lead} 70. 00 do 5. 50 9. 0 of potash 90. 00 do 22. 00 24. 0 of soda, anhydrous 60. 00 . . .do . _ u5. 00 9. 0 of soda, crystallized or hvdrate 60. 00 do a4. 75 8.0 234 Alcohol, amylic ." 6. 25 Alcohol, methylic 65. 00 do 9. 25 14.0 235 Aluminate of soda .. &13. 50 236 1 Alum of ammoniac or of potash, and sul- 50. 00 do 1. 50 3.0 phate of alumine. 237 Ammoniac (volatile alkali) 52. 00 do 3. 00 6. 0 238 Arsenate of potash 90. 00 do 8. 75 10. 0 238 Arsenate of soda 50. 00 do 4’ 25 8. 0 239 Borax, crude, native, or artificial 120. 00 . . . .do 8. 75 7. 3 239 Borax, half refined or refined 150. 00 ....do 10. 00 6.8 a Including tlie cost of superintendence of the manufacture of soda. 6 These duties do not include the inland consumption tax. 606 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Inolosure No. 1 — Continued. 240 241 242 243 243 243 243 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 .250 251 252 Articles. mechanical — continued. 253 254 255 256 ; 257 258 Carbonate of magnesia Carbonate of lead Citrate of lime Chlorate of potash, soda (A), and others .. Chloride of aluminium Chloride double of aluminium and sodium. Chloride of lime Chloride of magnesium Chloride of potash Chromate of potash Chromate of lead Glycerine, for manufacturing purposes Glycerine, refined Hermes, liver of antimony, mineral crocus, and other oxides of salts of antimony, ex- cepting the emetic. Lactate of iron Magnesia, calcined Nitrate of potash (saltpeter) and of soda. . Oxalate of potash Silicate of soda, anhydrous Silicate of soda, crystallized Silicate of eoda, hydrate Sulphate of copper Sulphate of iron Sulphate double of iron and copper Sulphate of soda, pure, anhydrous, con- taining in native state 25 per cent, or less of salt. Sulphate of soda, pure, anhydrous, con- taining in native state more than 25 per cent, of salt. Sulphate of soda, pure, crystallized or hy- drated (Glauber’s salts). Sulphate of soda, impure, anhydrous, con- taining in native state 25 per cent, or less of salt. Sulphate of soda, impure, anhydrous, con- taining in native state 25 per cent, or less of salt. Sulphate of soda, impure, crystallized or hyflrated (Glauber’s salts). Sulphate of zinc Sulphite of soda Hyposulphite of soda Sulphuret of arsenic Sulphuret of mercury, natural (cinnabar) . Sulphuret of mercury, artificial (in stones) Sulphuret of mercury, pulverized (Ver- million). Tartrate of potash, including the double tartrate of potash and soda. Prussiate of potash, yellow Prussiate of potash, red Chemical products of tar and coal (coal-oil, benzine, and other light oils, heavy oils, nitro benzine, aniline, phenic acid, naph- thaline, anthracine, and others not men- tioned). Al l other chemical products not men- tioned, including extracts of quinine, and phosphoric paste. DYES, PREPARED. 259 Cochineal 260 Kermes, animal 261 I Lac dye Customs valuation. Fret. Ots. 100. 00 45. 00 4000. 00 12. 00 8. 00 130. 00 105. 00 200. 00 380. 00 260. 00 150. 00 20. 00 20. 00 51. 00 7. 00 20.00 8. 00 18. 00 750. 00 650. 00 240. 00 Units. .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do do .do .do .do do do do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do .do do .do do .do .do Duty. Fres. Free Ot g. 6. 25 2. 00 7. 50 32. 00 200. 00 18. 50 a4. 50 aO. 50 Free 10. 00 16. 00 4. 75 7. 50 25. 00 43. 00 18.50 12. 50 *4. 25 *3. 75 ‘ 2. 10 3. 00 0. 65 0. 50 ‘ 2.20 *9.00 * 1.20 * 2.20 *8.25 *L 10 L 40 * 2. 20 *4. 75 5 per cent, ad valorem. Free 31. 00 62.00 Free. Free. 20. 00 30. 00 5 per cent, ad valorem , with power to transfer to specific duty. Free. Free. Free. Pr. ct. 6.2 4. 5 5.0 3.3 6.0 7.7 16.0 3.8 11.3 7.2 8.4 21.0 19.0 6 . 0 9.0 2.5 27.0 12.0 4.1 9.5 8.0 * Including the cost of the superintendence of the manufacture qf soda. Estimated ad valorem duty. REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 607 Inolosure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. Is 1 | ’■§'1 H £ 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 290 dyes, prepared — continued. Frcs. Ots. Indigo Indigo pastel, blue, balls and composi- tions. Paste for pastels Cacbou, in lumps Eocoa, prepared (annato) Orchil, paste (moist) Orchil, dry (cudbear) Turnsole . Garancine Extracts of dye-stufl's, black and violet ... Extracts of dye-stuffs, red and yellow Coal-tar dyes : Dry Paste, containing at least 50 per cent, of water. Picric acid Alizarine (artificial madder) COLORS. Ultramarine Prussian blue Carmine, common Carmine, fine Varnish, alcohol Varnish, turpentine Varnish oil, or turpentine or oil mixed Ink, writing, drawing Ink. printing Black, ivory Black, for plate printing Black, lamp Black, mineral (ore) Pencils, common; slate, common Pencils, carpenters’, common, in soft wood. Pencils, fine, in cedar or filled with colored lead. Pencils for pocket-books, with or without bone heads. Ochers, ground, or otherwise prepared for painting. Earths, cologne, cassel, Italian sienna, and amber. Green, Schweinfurt and mixed green; blue and green ashes. Green, mountain, Brunswick, and others formed by mixing chromate of lead and Prussian blue. Talc, pulverized Colors ground in oils, including carbonate of lead in oil. Water colors for paper hangings Colors not specified VARIOUS COMPOUNDS. Perfumery, soaps — Perfumery, alcoholic . Perfumery, not alcoholic Soap, common Sizing made from Iceland moss (lichen fer- ment). 100. 00 200. 00 140. 00 140. 00 350. 00 130. 00 350. 00 500. 00 4, 000. 00 300. 00 200. 00 300. 00 1 , 000 . 00 200. 00 90. 00 200. 00 40. 00 100. 00 6. 00 20. 00 50. 00 50. 00 12. 00 100. 00 100. 00 300. 00 400. 00 55.00 .do .do ....do do do do do do do do do Frcs. Free. Free. Free. Free . Ots. Free. Free. Free. 5.00 10.00 .do .do do ....do do ....do do do do do ....do do do do do do do Per 100 kilos — do do 20.00 30.00 125. 00 70. 00 25.00 5 per cent, ad valorem, with power to transfer to specific duty. 20. 00 12. 50 25. 00 200. 00 (B) 30. 00 20. 00 40. 00 20. 00 20.00 5.00 8.00 1. 20 Free. ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do .do .do 1. 00 35.00 140. 00 240.00 0.25 0. 50 5. 00 5.00 0. 25 4. 00 7. 50 5 per cent, ad valorem, with power to transfer to a specific duty. Per 100 kilos Per hectoliter of pure alco- hol. Per 100 kilos ...do — do 12. 00 a37. 50 12. 00 6. 00 6.00 Pr. ct. 5.0 5.0 14.0 21.0 10.0 7.0 15.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 13.0 1.0 10.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 1.0 60.0 4.0 2.5 10.0 10.0 2.0 4.0 7.5 4.0 3.0 11.0 (B) Not including the internal-revenue tax. 608 REPOET OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. o Articles. 6 Customs valuation. Units. Duty. ■£§ various compounds— continued. 291 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 314 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 Prepared spices : Mustard Sauces, &c Medicaments not mentioned, specified in the official Pharmacopia.a. Medicaments, other Waters, distilled, alcoholic - Frcs. Ots. 150. 00 400. 00 Waters, distilled, not alcoholic Chicory, roasted or ground Starch Feculas Sealing wax i Candles, spermaceti, paraffine and wax, of all sorts. W ax and stearic acid, not in candles Candles having wicks twisted, woven or plaited, and chemically prepared. Candles, other than above Fish glue Glue and gelatine Albumen Ginger-bread Sugar of milk Blacking 100. 00 45.00 71. 00 300. 00 190. 00 200. 00 2, 900. 00 120. 00 *80.* 66' do do Per hectoliter of pure al- cohol. Per 100 kilos. do do ....do do do do ....do ...do do do do do — do ....do Frcs. Ots. Pr. ct. 5.00 3.3 25.00 6.0 See note Prohibited . . . (6)30.00 10. 00 10.0 5. 00 11.0 6. 00 8.5 6. 00 30. 00 10.0 (6)19. 00 10.0 19. 00 9.5 (6)12. 00 (6)6. 00 40. 00 1.4 Free Free 15.00 12.5 Free 4. 00 5.0 BEVERAGES. Wines, of all sorts (Wines showing proof of 15° shall he liable the duty on alcohol, according to quantity of spirit exceeding 15°, and shall he subject to the import duty on wine for the remainder of the liquid.) t Vinegar, other than perfumery Cider, perry and verjuice Beer Mead Orange juice Alcohol and brandy, in bottles Alcohol and brandy, not in bottles Other alcohols Liquors . . . : (All products composed partly or mostly of alcohol shall be subject exclusively to the customs dues hearing upon them, to the internal revenues on alcohol in use; said dues shall be decided by the consult- ing committee of arts and manufactures.) Apples and pears, crushed Mineral waters (jars included) Per hectoliter 35. 00 20. 00 45. 00 20. 00 90. 00 do do do ....do do 300. 00 Per liquid bee-! toliter. do do do Per 100 kilos. do t4. 50 (6)4. 50 13.0 (6)1. 00 5.0 (c) 7. 75 17.0 (6)20. 00 100.0 4.50 5.0 (6)30. 50 25.0 (6)30. 00 (6)30. 00 25.0 13.0 (6)40. 00 Free Free EARTHEN, STONE, AND GLASS WARE. 317 to 320 321 322 Potteries of common clay, gas retorts, crucibles, all sorts, including those in graphite or plumbago; drain pipes, clay pipes, and other, not glazed. Potteries, others, glazed, without decora- tions of sculpture or painting (coarse pottery). Potteries, others, glazed, with decorations of sculpture or painting. Utensils used in the manufacture of chem- ical products. do 40. 00 .do do do Free Free 5. 00 8. 0 Free a Specific duties to be decided by the high school of pharmacy, rating at 10 per cent, ad valorem, ex- clusive of the duties which may he fixed on medicaments composed of dutiable substances, either by the custom-house or internal revenue. 6 Not including the internal-revenue tax. c Including the discriminating duty repiesenting the tax imposed uDon beer manufactured in France. tWines, ordinary, in casks, 5 per cent. Wines, ordinary, in bottles, 2 per cent. Wines, fine, in casks, 1.5 per cent. Wines, fine, in bottles, 0.9 per cent. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 609 Inclosure JS r o. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. tsa 323 324 325 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 336 337 EARTHERN, STONE, AND GLASS WARE— COnt’d Stoneware — Common Fine Ceramics, tiles, of different colors Ceramics, tiles, of one color Faiences, stanniferous, of colored paste, covered, white or colored, with orna- ments in relief, flutings or indentations, monochrone, molded, not finished by hand. Faience, particolored, glaze, stamped or hand-painted, or molded, and hand-fin- ished. Faience, fine (fine white, paste-baked, and cleansed), white, or covered with uni- form colored glaze. Faience, fine, decorated White porcelain Decorated porcelain Decorated porcelain, of fortified thickness. Porcelain, Parian, and white and colored bisque. GLASS AND CRYSTAL. Glass plates and mirrors— Less than half a square meter From half a meter square to a meter square, exclusively, rough, unpol- ished. From half a meter square to 1 meter square, exclusive, polished or sil- vered. A meter square or more, unpolished . . A meter square or more, polished or silvered. Goblets of glass or crystal, plain, molded, or pressed, white or tinted throughout, one color Goblet s cut or engraved in any other man- ner than is necessary for effacing the mark of the pontee. Goblets, decorated in gold or colors Window-glass, common Stained window-glass, engraved, polished. Watch crystals, spectacle, and optic, in- cluding glasses for toy watches, unpol- ished. Same, cut and polished Vitrifications and enamel (casting) in lumps or tubes. Vitrifications, in beads, pierced and cut, or in imitation, jewelry, brooches, col- ored or not, spun glass, halls, and imita- tion coral. Bottles, full or empty Broken glass I Other glass objects not mentioned Frcs. Ots. 30.’ 66 THREADS. Flax or linen thread. Threads, single, unbleached, measuring in the kilogram : 2,000 meters or less More than 2,000 meters and not above 5.000 meters. More than 5,000 meters and not above 10.000 meters. More than 10,000 meters and not above 20.000 meters. More than 20,000 meters and not above 30.000 meters. S. Ex. 72 39 Per 100 kilos. — do — do ...do do Frcs. Free. 165. 00 65. 00 165. 00 200. 00 450. 00 165 00 450 00 135. 00 ...do ...do ... .do .do .do .do .do Square meter ...do 15. 00 12. 50 40. 50 ...do ...do ...do 100 kilos .do 33. 00 400. 00 ...do ...do ...do . . .do 900. 00 250. 00 14. 00 ’ 140.' 66’ ...do . . .do ...do 120. 00 160. 00 200. 00 240. 00 275. 00 100 kilos ...do ...do ...do Free . Ots. 4. 00 8. 00 3. 00 1. 00 Pr. ct. 10.0 15.00 10. 00 15. 00 12. 50 25. 00 15. 00 25.00 25. 00 1. 20 3. 75 1. 90 5. 00 31. 00 4. 25 18. 50 15. 00 149. 00 4. 75 25.00 3. 00 ’i8.'50 16. 00 18. 00 23. 00 33. 00 40. 00 9.0 15.4 9. 1 6.0 5.5 9.1 5.5 19.0 25.0 15.0 12.0 4. 25 12. 50 j )> 7. 5 13.0 4.6 16.0 10.0 2.1 13.0 7.5 10.0 8.7 7.3 6.8 610 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Inclo8ure No. 1 — Continued. No. of articles. Articles. Customs valuation. IJnits. Duty. Estimated ad .valorem duty. threads— C ontinued. Flax or linen thread— continued. Threads, single, unbleached, measured in the kilogram— Continued. More than 30,000 meters and not above Free. Ots. 475. 00 100 kilos Free. Cts. 50. 00 Pr. ct. 9.6 40,000 meters. More than 40,000 meters and not above 625. 00 — do 70. 00 9.0 60,000 meters. More than 60,000 meters and not above 850. 00 do 99.00 8.5 80,000 meters. More than 80,000 meters and not above 1, 200. 00 — do 149. 00 8.0 100,000 meters. 100,000 or more 1, 500. 00 145. 00 .... do 200. 00 20. 80 7.5 7.0 (Polished threads under 2.000 meters shall paythe same duty as twine, and those . measuring more than 2,000 meters shall pay the same duty as linen and hemp thread, bleached or colored, single or twisted.) Thread, single, bleached, measuring in the kilogram : 2,000 meters or less do Above 2,000 meters and not above 200. 00 . . do 23. 40 8.5 5,000 meters. Above 5,000 meters and not above 250. 00 do 29.90 8.4 10,000 meters. Above 10,000 meters and not above 310. 00 do 42. 90 7.2 20,000 meters. Above 20,000 meters and not above 430. 00 do 52. 00 8.0 30,000 meters. Above 30,000 meters and not above 550. 00 — do 65.00 8.5 40,000 meters. Above 40,000 meters and not above 700. 00 ...do 91. 00 7.8 60,000 meters. Above 60,000 meters and not above 950. 00 — do 128. 70 7.4 80,000 meters. Above 80,000 meters and not above 1, 700. 00 ....do 193. 70 8.7 100,000 meters. 100.000 meters or more Thread, single, colored, measuring in the kilogram : 2.000 meters or less 1, 700. 00 190. 00 do do 260.00 20. 80 9.0 Above 2,000 meters and not above 250. 00 do 23. 40 11.0 5,000 meters. Above 5,000 meters and not above 300. 00 do 29. 90 10.0 10,000 meters. Above 10,000 meters and not above 375. 00 ...do 42. 90 8.7 20,000 meters. Above 20,000 meters and not above 500. 00 do 52. 00 9.5 30,000 meters. Above 30,000 meters and not above 625. 00 do 65.00 9.6 40,000 meters. Above 40.000 meters and not above 850. 00 ....do 91. 00 9.4 60,000 meters. Above 60,000 meters and not above 1, 100. 00 do 128 70 8.5 80,000 meters. Above 80,000 meters and not above 1, 900. 00 ....do 193. 70 9.8 100,000 meters. 100.000 meters or more Thread, twisted, unbleached, measuring in the kilogram : 2.000 meters or less 1, 900. 00 160. 00 — do — do 260. 00 20. 80 7.6 Above 2,000 meters and not above 200. 00 do 23. 40 8 5 5,000 meters. Above 5, 000 meters and not above 300. 00 do 29.90 10.0 10,000 meters. Above 10,000 meters and not above 550. 00 ....do 42. 90 13.0 20 000 meters. Above 20,000 meters and not above 650. 00 — do 52. 00 12.3 30,000 meters. Above 30,000 meters and not above 800. 00 ... do 65.00 12.3 40,000 meters. Above 40,000 meters and not above 1, 200. 00 — do 91.00 13.0 60,000 meters. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 611 Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. a ,2 Si? o *o Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. ■S-B os a a £ o* '-si 6 w P threads — con tinned. Thread twisted, &c. — Continued. Frcs. Cts. Frcs. Ct8. Pr. et. Above 60,000 meters and not above 1, 700. 00 do 128. 70 13.0 80,000 meters. Above 80,000 meters and not above — do 193. 70 15.0 3, 000. 00 100,000 meters. do 260. 00 3, 000. 00 Thread, twisted, bleached, measuring in the kilogram : 185. 00 do 27.04 30. 42 7.0 8.7 Above 2,000 meters and not abov^ 260. 00 do 5,000 meters. Above 5,000 meters and not above 400. 00 do 38. 87 11.0 10,000 meters. Above 10,000 meters and not above 675. 00 do 55. 77 12.0 20,000 meters. Above 20,000 meters and not above 800. 00 — do 67. 60 12.0 30,000 meters. Above 30,000 meters and cot above 40,000 meters. 1, 000. 00 do 84.50 12.0 Above 40,000 meters and not above 1,400. 00 do 118. 30 12.0 60,000 meters. Above 60,000 meters and not above 1, 900. 00 do 167. 30 12.0 80,000 meters. Above 80,000 meters and not above 100,000 meters. 3, 200. 00 .... do 255. 81 12.0 do Above 100, 000 meters 3, 200. 00 338. 00 Thread, twisted, dyed, measuring in the kilogram : 2,000 meters or less 200. 00 300. 00 do 27.04 30.42 7.4 10.0 Above 2,000 meters and not. above — do 5,000 meters. Above 5,000 meters and not above 475. 00 do 38.87 12.0 10,000 meters. Above 10,000 meters and not above do 750. 00 55.77 13.0 20,000 meters. Above 20,000 meters and not above 925. 00 do 67. 60 13.0 30,000 meters. Above 30,000 meters and not above 1, 100. 00 - . do 84. 50 13.0 40,000 meters. Above 40,000 meters and not above 1, 500. 00 — do 118. 30 13.0 60,000 meters. Above 60,000 meters and not above 2, 000. 00 ...do 167. 30 13.0 80,000 meters. Above 80,000 meters and not above 3, 400. 00 do 255. 81 13.0 100,000 meters. Above 100, OuO meters do 3, 400. 00 338. 00 Thread of flax or hemp mixed, the flax or hemp predominating in weight, shall pay the same duty as flax or hemp thread pure, according to class. THREAD OF JUTE, PURE. 538 Thread, jute, pure, unbleached, measuring in the kilogram: Less than 1,400 meters do 6. 25 7. 50 1 From 1,400 meters to 3,699 meters, in- clusive. ■ .a ....do •2 ® From 3,700 meters to 4,199 meters, in- bp to c& J ....do 8.75 > 12 1 clusive. f OH S — p § cSTj esS t* o >;C = 30.500 to 40.500 to 50.500 to 60.500 to 70.500 to r-f* sl > !M ii * §1 a r r ► o © 2 it - s ~ fee <1 €-1 II © Units. Duty. Frcs. Cts. 100 kilos 8. 75 .. do 11.00 do 12. 50 do 17.50 ....do Same duty as | flax or hemp thread. Same duty as ! pure j u t e 1 thread. ....do Same duty as thread of jute. do 18.50 — do 25.00 do 37.00 i do 50. oo ; do 62. 00 : do 74. 00 ! — do 87.00 1 — do 112.00 . . do 124.00 1 . . do 149.00 do 174.00 — do 198.00 1 do 248.00 i do 310.00 do 372. 00 1 . . . do 21.25 ! do 28.75 ; do 42. 55 do 57. 50 i do 71.30 i ...do 85.10 ! do 100.05 ...do 128.80 ...do 142.60 1 . do 171.35 do 200. 10 do 227.70 1 do 285.20 ; do 356.50 do 427.80 do 48.50 j . . . .do : 55.00 I do j 67.00 do 80.00 ....do 92.00 — do ! 104.00 i — do 117.00 , ; do 142.00 ...do 154.00 ' . . do 179. 00 1 . ..do 204. 00 ...do 228. 00 do | 278.00 do 340.00 I do , 402.00 | Pr. et. 16 Estimated ad valorem duty. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 613 Inclosure No. 1. — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. ■3;? "ce 9 | -a w > 340 341 341 cotton tarns— continued. Cotton yarn, single, dyed or clouded, in Turkey red, measuring to the § kilo- gram: 20,500 meters or less 20.500 to 30,500 meters 30.500 to 40,500 meters 40.500 to 50,500 meters 50.500 to 60,500 meters 60.500 to 70,500 meters 70.500 to 80,500 meters * 80.500 to 90,500 meters 90.500 to 100,500 meters 100.500 to 110,500 meters 110.500 to 120,500 meters 120.500 to 130,500 meters 130.500 to 140,500 meters 140.500 to 170,500 meters 170.500 meters Cotton yarn, twisted, unbleached, in two or three strands, in small, ordinary skeins, measuring to the \ kilogram : 20.500 meters or less 20.500 to 30,500 meters 30.500 to 40,500 meters 40. 500 to 50, 500 meters 50.500 to 60,500 meters 60.500 to 70,500 meters 70.500 to 80,500 meters 80.500 to 90,500 meters 90.500 to 100,500 meters 100.500 to 110,500 meters 110.500 to 120,500 meters 120.500 to 130,500 meters 130.500 to 140,500 meters 140.500 to 170,500 meters 170.500 meters Cotton yarn, twisted, bleached, twisted in two or three strands, measuring by \ kilogram : 20.500 meters 20.500 to 30,500 meters 30.500 to 40,500 meters 40.500 to 50,500 meters 50.500 to 60,500 meters 60.500 to 70,500 meters 70.500 to 80,500 meters 80.500 to 90,500 meters 90.500 to 100,500 meters 100.500 to 110,500 meters 110.500 to 120,500 meters 120.500 to 130,500 meters 130.500 to 140,500 meters . , 140.500 to 170,500 meters 170.500 meters Cotton yarn, twisted, of two or three threads, dyed in ordinary colors or clouded. Cotton yarn, twisted, of two or three threads, dyed in Turkey red. Cotton yarn, twisted, in small ordinary skeins, of four or more threads, un- bleached, bleached, or colored: Single twisted. Frcs. Ots. o > fcX'w c3 © Double twisted and cable ,3 g ^ © 9 t £3 100 kilos Pres. Cts. 78. 50 ....do 85. 00 do 97. 00 — do 110. 00 do 122. 00 ... do 134. 00 147. 00 do 172. 00 do 184. 00 — do 209. 00 do 234. 00 do 258. 00 .. do 308. 00 do 370. 00 ... do 432. 00 ....do 24. 05 do 32. 50 — do 48. 10 do 65.00 do 80. 60 do 96. 20 do 113. 10 ....do 145. 60 do 161. 20 do 193. 70 ....do 226. 20 do 257. 40 do 322. 40 — do 403. 00 ....do 483. 60 — do 27.65 — do 37. 38 ...do 55. 32 do 74. 75 — do 92.69 — do 110. 63 do 130. 06 ... do 167. 44 do 185. 38 . . do 222. 75 do 260. 13 do 296. 01 do 370. 76 — do 463. 45 do 556. 14 — do 30 francs per j 100 kilos, in addition to the duty levied on twisted yarn, un- bleached. 60 francs per ICO kilos, in addition to the duty on yarn, twisted, un- bleached. 0. 015 Per 100 me- ters of sin- gle thread. 0.02 Pr. ct. Av.10 • Av.10 10.0 11.0 11.0 614 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Inclo8ure Ao. 1 — Continued. Units. Duty. Pres. Ct8. 0.02 0. 025 Per 100 kilos. Duty on the component yarn aug- mented by 30 per cent. Same duty as unbleached cotton warp, with the ad- dition of 15 per cent. Same duty as ...do that of un- bleached yam, with the addition of 30 francs per 100 kilos when dyed in ordinary colors; of 60 francs per 100 kilos when dyed in Turkey red. Same duty as Per 100 kilos . that of pure cotton yarn. 25.00 do ! 31. 00 ....do 43. 00 ....do 56. 00 do 68. 00 do 81.00 ....do 93.00 1 ....do 105. 00 — do 118. 00 do 124. 00 — do 18. 50 | do 28. 00 ...do 37. 00 — do 46. 00 1 — do 56. 00 . . do 62.00 do 74.00 — do 87. 00 do 99.00 do 112.00 do 124. 00 do 136. 00 ; dO 149. 00 1 — do 155.00 Articles. Customs valuation. Hi'S ”§a S £ ’-3 ° r !S’e3 342 cotton yabns — continued. Cotton yam, twisted, made up in balls, spools, skeins, cards, or other forms, regardless of the number of strands, of bleaching, unbleaching, dyeing: Single twisted Double twisted and cable Cotton warps : Unbleached Frcs. Cta. 343 Bleached . Dyed. Cotton yam, mixed, the cotton predomi- nating in weight. WOOLS. 343^ Wool, including alpaca, llama, vicuna, yak, and camel’s hair, carded, combed, or dyed. 344 Yarn of pure wool, bleached or unbleached, I combed, measuring to the kilogram : 30,500 meters or less 30. 500 to 40, 500 meters 40.500 to 50.500 meters 50.500 to 60,500 meters 60.500 to 70.500 meters 70.500 to 80,500 meters 80. 500 to 90, 500 meters 90.500 to 100,500 meters 100,500 meters Yarns of pure wool, single thread, bleached or unbleached, combed, measuring to the kilogram : 10,000 meters or less 1 10.000 to 15,000 meters 15.000 to 20,000 meters > 20.000 to 30,500 meters 30.500 meters J Yam, of pure wool, single thread, dyed, combed, measuring to the kilogram: 30.500 meters or less ") 30.500 to 40,500 meters I 40.500 to 50,500 meters 50.500 to 60,500 meters | 60.500 to 70,500 meters 70.500 to 80,500 meters 80.500 to 90,500 meters 90.500 to 100,500 meters 100,500 meters 1, 500. 00 Average, 720 . francs. Average, 720 ( francs. 700 francs in the av- < erage. Pr. et. 6.0 1.7 6.0 9.0 9.0 No. of articles. REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 615 Inclo8ure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. ■ cotton yarns— continued. Yarn, of pure wool, single thread, dyed, carded, measuring to the kilogram: Frcs. Cts. Frcs. Cts. l do 50.00 700 francs in the av- < do 59. 00 15,000 to 20,000 meters > . . do 68.00 erage. do 77.00 30,500 meters J do 87.00 | Yarn, of pure wool, twisted, for weaving, bleached or not, combed, measuring to the kilogram, in single thread: 30,500 meters or less do . . 40. 00 do 56. 00 40,500 to 50,500 meters do 72. 00 50,500 to 60,500 meters 815 francs do 88. 00 in the av- < ... do 104. 00 70,500 to 80,500 meters erage. do .. .. 120. 00 80,500 to 90,500 meters . . do 136. 00 90,500 to 100,500 meters . . do 152. 00 100,500 meters t do 161. 00 Yarn, of pure wool, twisted for weaving, bleached or not, carded, measuring to the kilogram, in single thread: ( . do 28. 00 10,000 to 15,000 meters. . . 825 francs j . . . .do 37. 00 15,000 to 20,000 meters S in the av- 2 ....do 46. 00 20,000 to 30,500 meters | erage. do 56. 00 ... .do 65. 00 Yarn of pure wool, twisted for weaving, dyed, combed, measuring to the kilo- gram in single thread : 30,500 meters or less . . . .do 71. 00 30,500 to 40,500 meters — do 87. 00 40,500 to 50,500 meters do 99. 00 50,500 to 60,500 meters 940 francs do 112. 00 60,500 to 70,500 meters S in the av- ' do 124. 00 70,500 to 80,500 meters erage. . . . .do 138. 00 80,500 to 90,500 meters ... do 152. 00 90,500 to 100,500 meters .... do 166. 00 100,500 meters .. .. .... do 174. 00 Yarn of pure wool, twisted for weaving, dyed, carded, measuring to the kilo- gram in singlo thread : 10, 000 meters or less. l f do 59- 00 10,000 to 15,000 meters 940 francs I . . do 68. 00 15,000 to 20,000 meters v in the av- ^ do 77. 00 20,000 to 30.500 meters erage. do 87. 00 30,500 meters J do 96.00 Yarn of pure wool, twisted for .tapestry, combed, bleached or not, measuring to the kilogram in single thread : 30,500 meters or less ... do 46. 00 30,500 to 40,500 meters do 65. 00 40,500 to 50,500 meters do 84. 00 50,500 to 60,500 meters 950 francs . . do 102. 00 60,500 to 70,500 meters. > in the av- > do 121. 00 70,500 to 80,500 meters. erage. do 139. 00 158. 00 80,500 to 90,500 meters ... do 90,500 to 100,500 meters , do 177. 00 100,500 meters J 1 do 186.00 Yarn of pure wool, twisted for tapestry, combed, dyed, measuring to the kilo- gram, in simple thread : 30,500 meters or less 1 s ( 77.00 30,500 to 40.500 meters . . do 96. 00 40,500 to 50,500 meters 11 \ . do 152.00 i 170. 00 70, 500 to 80,500 meters .... do 80,500 to 90,500 meters g g do 189.00 90.500 to 100,500 meters . . .. do 208.00 ICO. 500 meters J l ... do 217.00 . i Yarn, rlpaea, lama, vicuna, o • camel’s hair, Same duty as l moor mixed with other fibers, the al- paca, vicuna, &.c., piedoiuinating in 1 weight. pure wool yarn. Estimated ad valorem duty. 616 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. w > 348 349 350 351 352 COTTON yarns — continued. Yarn, goat hair, pure or mixed, the goat hair preponderating. Yarn of other hair Yarn, wool mixed with filaments other than alpaca, lama, vicuna, or camel’s hair, the wool preponderating. SILK FLOCK YARN. Yarn of silk flock (silk fleuret), bleached, unbleached, azured or dyed, measuring to the kilogram : Simple, 80,500 meters or less Simple, more than 80,500 meters The same, twisted Frcs. Cts. 1,600. 00 Yarn of waste silk flock The same, twisted Fabrics of flax or hemp, pure, plain, or worked : Unbleached, showing in warp and woof spaces of 5 square millimeters, after division of the whole by 2 — 6 threads or less 7 to 8 threads 9 to 10 threads 11 to 12 threads 13 to 14 threads ... 15, 16, and 17 threads 18, 19, and 20 threads 21, 22, and 23 threads Over 23 threads The same, bleached, dyed The same, printed (In counting the threads, both of the warp and woof, the fractions of thread are not counted ; the total of both numbers is divided by 2, and if the quotient be frac- tional, the fraction shall be counted as an entire thread.) Canvas for oil-cloth Linens, damasked, for bedding, and furni- ture: Unbleached The same, bleached or mixed with white or colored threads. 353 ! Table linens, damasked, unbleached, hav- ! ing in warp in the space of 5 square I millimeters : i 12 threads or less 13 and 14 threads 15, 16, and 17 threads 18, 19, and 20 threads ' 21, 22, and 23 threads More than 23 threads Bleached, clouded, or mixed with white or colored threads. do do .do 220 . 230. 350. 575. 695. 800. 860. 1 , 100 . 1, 500. 600. 1, 520. ....do ....do do — do do do do — do do 280. no 420. 00 Frcs. Cts. 30. 00 Pr. ct. 5.4 .do .do .do .do .do do — do do .do do 354 Twills, unbleached Twills, cream-colored, white, or mixed, with unbleached, bleached or colored threads. 875. 00 do 93. 00 950. 00 do 129. 00 1, 050. 00 1, 800. 00 2, 800. 00 3, 700. 00 ...do 165. 00 do 265. 00 do 395. 00 do 530. 00 Duty on the unbleached, a n gmented 30 per cent, •120. 00 Same as above, augmented 30 per cent. 1 700. 00 j Per 100 kilos, do 1 Free Same duties as those on pure wool yarn. 93. 00 149. 00 Duty on sin- gle thread augmented 30 per cent. 31. 00 Duty on the foregoing augmented 30 per cent. 28. 00 ; 1 42. 00 i | 68. 00 81. 00 112. 00 143. 00 230. 00 344. 00 460. 00 Duty on un- bleached augmented 30 per cent. 30. 00 112. 00 Same duty as next above, augmented 30 per cent. 13.0 J8.0 19.0 14.0 17.0 18.0 26.0 31.0 31.0 11.0 27.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 617 Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. a & ■85 70. 00 do ] > 13.0 s l 8. 00 S ■ 1 450. 00 do 248. 00 17.0 1, 100. 00 do 124. 00 11.0 300. 00 do 25. 00 8.3 425. 00 do 50. 00 12.0 1, 025. 00 do 50. 00 5.0 1, 000. 00 — do 100. 00 10.0 ] \ 125. 00 I [ 2, 500. 00 — do 250. 00 \ 12.0 [ ] 375. 00 I J 1 600. 00 1 350. 00 do 15.00 3.4 Free , do 3. 00 ...do 3 75 > 17.0 1 do 4 50 1 J 40. 00 do 6. 00 15.0 70. 00 ... .do 10. 00 14.0 125. 00 do 8. 00 7.0 40. 00 — do 8. 00 20.0 130. 00 ....do 12.00 9.2 624 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. I i 494 495 497 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 | 509 ENGINES AND MACHINERY, &C.— continued. Anchors, chains, cables, and drags in the French ports and roadsteads. Anchors, chains, and cables, others Nails, machinery made Nails, hand made Iron, wood-screws, eye-bolts, ring-hooks: The screw having a diameter 7 millime- ters or less. The screw having a diameter over 7 mil- limeters. Iron bolts and nuts Tubes and fittings, iron, butt-welded, 9 millimeters or more inside diameter. The same, having less than 9 millimeters inside diameter. Tubes and fittings, iron, lap-welded Iron pipes and joinings of all sorts Iron household ware, and other articles not mentioned, polished or painted. The same tinned, enameled, or varnished. . Steel cables made from steel wire Steel small wares, such as beads, buckles, brooches, thimbles. Steel household wares, and other pure steel goods not mentioned. Cast iron and iron : Not polished, the weight of the iron being less than half of the whole. Not polished, the weight of the iron not being less than half of the whole. Polished, enameled, or varnished, with ■ ornaments in iron, copper, brass, orsteel. Copper ware, pure or alloyed with zinc or tin, smiths’ work. Copper ware, pure or alloyed works of art, j ornaments, &c. ■ i Lead, pipes and other manufactures of — ; Tin, pure or alloyed with antimony ; ves- sels, pots, and other ware. Zinc, manufactures of, all kinds Nickel alloyed with copper or zinc (Ger- man silver), manufactures of. ARMS AND AMMUNITIONS. Frcs. Cts. Per 100 kilos Frcs. 50.00 ....do 50.00 ...do .do .do do 150. 00 ..do ..do ..do .do .do do .do .do do 500. 00 2, 500. 00 85. 00 1, 050. 00 do do ....do 650.00 ... do 1,00^00 j do Cts. 1 Pr. ct. 1.25 1 20. 00 20. 00 26. 0 12.0 15.0 1.2 10.0 510 511 I 512 ; 513 514 515 | 516 517 Arms of war , Per 100 kilos. Side arms, not military. Fire aims, not military, muzzle loading . . . j | 1,000.00 ... do 1 , 875 . 04 ;;*; 1,500.00 do 800. 00 do do — do Fire arms, not military, breech loading Gun bairels, rough and unpolished, not military. Gunpowder Percussion caps : I'or military use . For sporting uses Cartridges : | . For military uses do For shooting clubs 400. 00 do For sporting uses (filled) do For sporting uses (empty) 400. 00 ... do Projectiles for military uses do Slow matches for mines : Ordinary i C do Covered with linen ribbon S. 350. 00V do Covered with india rubber ) ( do Fire-works 375. 00 do FURNITURE. Prohibited .. 40. 00 240. 00 360. 00 60. 00 Prohibited Prohibited .. 60. 00 Prohibited .. 25. 00 Prohibited .. 60. 00 Prohibited 518 Furniture in bent wood, whether mounted Per 100 kilos. | or not. 519 Furniture, other: Seats, without carving, inlaying, or do ornaments of copper and in common Wood. Seats, in cabinet wood, without carv- do ing, inlaying or ornaments of copper. 7.5 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 625 Inclosure No. 1— Continued. 5] 9 520 Articles. FURNITURE— continued. Furniture, other: Seats, in any kind of wood, with carv- ing, inlaying or ornaments of copper Furniture, other, not seats or chairs : Veneered, but neither carved nor in- laid, nor ornamented with copper. Veneered, carved, inlaid, ornamented with copper. Heavy common furniture Heavy furniture in cabinet wood, with or without moldings, but neither carved nor inlaid, nor ornamented with copper. Heavy furniture (not chairs) in fine wood, carved, inlaid, and ornamented with brass. Furniture, stuffed and covered, all sorts. . 521 | Frames and moldings, in wood and gilt wood. WOOD MANUFACTURES. . 522 Barrels, empty, new : i With wooden hoops With iron hoops 523 i Brooms, common 524 Pieces of frame work, wheelwright’s work, rough, cut out, or sawed, or shaped. 525 Button molds 526 Wooden shoes, common Wooden shoes, painted, varnished, or fur- lined. 527 Boxes in white wood 528 Planks, friezes, and strips, of parquet, I . planed and grooved : In oak or hard wood In pine or soft wood 529 Bushel-maker’s ware 530 Other manufactures of wood MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 531 Pianos, upright Pianos, long Harmoniums and harmoni flutes, with or without pedals, weighing — Less than 60 kilograms From CO to 120 kilograms 120 kilograms or upward Church organs, with pipes, weighing — Less than 4,000 kilograms (packing in- cluded). 4,000 to 10,000 kilograms 10.001 to 20,000 kilograms 20.001 kilograms and upwards Hand-organs, with or without figures, hav- ing several airs. Sihall hand-organs Hurdy-gurdies, vielles Harps Violins, altos, guitars, mandolins, viols, zitliars, eolian harps. Violincellos Counter-bass viols Small flutes, flageolettes, and musettes : With one key and ocarinas Flutes: With one key With several keys Customs valuation. Frcs. Ots. "Units. Per 100 kilos. — do ...do .do .do do 15.00 ---.do 20.00 ....do ..do ..do 330. 00 50. 00 70. 00 14. 00< 30. 00* 60. 00 600. 00 2 , 000 . 00 ....do do do do do do . ...do ....do Each do .do .do .do .do do .do .do .do .do .do .do do .do .do Duty. Frcs . Gts. 15. 00 Pr. ct. 10. 00 35. 00 ! I 5. 00 II 10.00 J 18. 00 15 per cent, above the foreg o i n g duties ac- cording to the class of goods. 15.00 Free Free 2 . oo; 2.50 Per dozen Each. — do 13. 00 12. 00 25.00 2.00 2 . oo; 1 . 00 ' 4. 00' 7. 00 50. 00 75.00 10. 00 20. 00 30. 00 100. 00 250. 00 400. 00 500. 00 15. 00 2 . 00 3. 00 50. 00 2. 00 4. 00 8 . 00 1. 20 0. 20 1. 00 4. 3- 7.0 13.0 4.0 24.0 3.0 10.0 13.0 12.0 8.4 4.0 S. Ex. 72— -40 I valorem duty. 626 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Inclosure No. 1 — Continued. © Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. © MUSICAL instruments— - continued. 531 Free. Hautboys, clarionets, English horns, bag- pipes. | Ophicleids, bombardons, and helicons ! Bassoons, saxophones, sarussophones, and brass instruments, with 6-finger kej s. . Bugles and military bugles Horns and cornets,^ brass or horn Hunting horns and trumps Three-keyed bugles, bugles with keys and stops, neohorns, harmony trumpets, sax- horns, trombones, buccins, and bugles. ! Chinese cymbals, large and small drums, [ chimes, kettle-drums. I Cymbals i Tamborines, triangles, castanets (pair), metallophones. I Tamtams and Chinese gongs Accordions and concertinas i Harmonicas (mouth), in wood or metal, jews harps. ; Musical boxes Metronomes Apparatus for mechanical playing of | pianos and harmonicons. ; Pedalers Bows, finished or not, plain Bows, finished or not, richly incrusted j Reeds, mouth-pieces and beaks for wind instruments. Instrument cases of all sorts J Detached portions of musical instruments, not otherwise denominated. MANUFACTURES IN MATTING, BASKET- WORK, OR* CORDAGE. CtS. Frcs. Each Cts. 2. 00 Pr. ct. do do 4.00 12.50 do .. do do .. do 0. 80 0. 30 1.60 3. 50 do . A pair Each. . 2. 50 1. 50 .50 do .do do 3.00 1.00 Duty on toys Per 100 kilos . Dutyonwatch- movements. Each Per 100 kilos . 40. 00 ; ...do Each — do Per dozen 40.00 0. 30 0. 60 0. 50 Duties on leather, card- board, &c., ac- cording to ! kind. Duties on wood and metal [ works, accord- ing to the substance of \ which they may be com- posed. 532 533 534 535 536 637 Plaits or mattings of three strands in es- Per 100 kilos . 0.50 j parto grass, for the manufacture of cord- j age Straw bark, or matweed plaitings, of more 170. 00 ... do 1.00 than three strands, and plaits of white wood, coarse, for mats. Straw bark, or matweed plaitings, of more 775.00 do 10.00 i than three strands, and plaits of white wood, coarse, for hats. Straw bark, or matweed fine plaitings, 400. 00 do 1 20. 00 more than three strands, or fine white wood plaitings. Mattings, cocoanut, aloes, or matweed do Duties on jute mattings. 5. 00 Chinese mattings 135. 00 1 do Pith of bamboo or rush rattan and reeds of ( ..do 10.00 1 3 or more millimeters in diameter, round - 1 ed on draw plates. The same, prepared or spun, less than 3 j millimeters in diameter. Rushes, rattans, reeds, prepared, rounded l 190. 00 1 ) ..do 20. 00 J 190. 00 1 .,..do 20. 00 I or not, varnished or not, spun rattan. Basket-work, in crude twigs 75. 00 do 5. 00 | Basket-work, in strips of wood 110. 00 300. 00 9. 00 Basket-work, fine willows or straw, mixed do 45. 00 or not with textile fibers. I Straw' hats (sewn and overlapped, untrim- 2, 800. 00 do 250.00 | med). 0 . 6 1 . 1 5. 0 5 » 3 V 8 0 8 0 6 7 8 2 15 0 9.0 I Estimated ad J valorem duty. REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 627 lnclosure No. 1 — Continued. Articles. Customs valuation. Units. Duty. S as 33,3 538 MANUFACTURES IN MATTING, BASKET-WORK, or cordage — continued. Hats of barks, matweed, palm fibers, un- trimmed, fine. The same, common Hats of vegetable substances, of every de- scription, trimmed. Cordage, fine dressed, of matweed, linden, or rushes. Cordage, other, measuring, by kilogram of thread (plain), 500 meters and under. Cordage, other, measuring, by kilogram of thread (plain), from 501 to 2,000 meters. The same, measuring, by kilogram of thread (plain), over 2,000 meters. 539 Fishing nets Frcs. 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 WORKS IN VARIOUS SUBSTANCES. Carriages, weighing 125 kilograms or more. The same, weighing less than 125 kilo- grams, including velocipedes. Vehicles for commerce, agriculture, &c., on springs. The same, not on springs Railway cars : For railroad with ordinary tracks, first-class carriages. For railroad with ordinary tracks, sec- ond and third class carriages. For railroad with ordinary tracks, freight cars. For railroad with narrow tracks, pas- senger carriages. For railroad with narrow tracks, freight cars. Carriages for tramways with ordinary tracks. Carriages for tramways with narrow tracks. Gravel cars Steam or sailing vessels, in wood or iron equipped. Halls of sea-going vessels, in wood or iron. River crafts, all sizes, in wood River crafts, all sizes, in iron Vessels for breaking up, in wood The same, sheated in metal Apparatus or equipment of vessels not mentioned : In metal In wood In skins or leather In tissues India-rubber and gutta-percha goods : Pure, or mixed with other substances . . Applications on stuffs in pieces, or other materials. Elastic fabrics Shoes and boots Made-up garments Felt, adhesive, for sheathing vessels . Felt, for carpets and shoo soles Felt, for machinery and pianos Cts. 1, 600. 00 2, 800. 00 40. 00 75. 00 135. 00. 800. 00 1 , 000.00 1, 500. 00 500. 00 100 . 00 600. 00 Frcs. Per 100 kilos. ... do . . do ...do ...do — do Cts. 150. 00 41.00 ...do .do do .do .do 110. 00 220. 00 40. 00 250. 00 180. 00 150. 00 300. 00 25. 00 40. 00 do . . .do ...do Gauge tons — do ...do . - do .. do . . .do Per 100 kilos. do .do .do - - do ...do do do .do .do .do do .001 . 00 ) 50 300. 00 3.75 18. 50 22. 50 Duties on twisted flax or hemp thread. 20. 00 50. 00 120. 00 .001 .00 5 12. 00 6 16. 001 11. 00 9. 00 { 20. 00 I 10. 00 I J 20.00 25.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 10. 00 40. 00 0. 30 . 0.75 Duty on met- al, according to kind of metal. Duty on wood- en goods, others. Duty on leath- er goods, others. Duty on fab- rics, according to the kind of fabrics. 20. 00 100.00 200. 00 60.00 120. 00 25. 00 35. 00 250. 00 Pr. ct. 9.4 10.0 9.2 10.0 to 20. 0 5.0 14.0 9.0 10.4 10.0 10.2 8.0 11.0 6.7 13.0 1.2 1.9 2.5 10.0 13.2 12.0 25.0 5.8 628 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. lnclomre No. 1 — Continued. 551 551$ 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 563 564 565 566 567 568 570 571 Articles. WORKS IN VARIOUS SUBSTANCES— COIlt’d. India-rubber and gutta-percha goods— Continued. Felt, for other purposes Felt cloth in pure wool for furniture, clothing, aDd boots and shoes. Hats, felt, untrimmed Hats, felt, trimmed Hats, wool Hats, silk Coral, cut, unset Goods, meerschaum (with or without Customs valuation. Frcs. Cts. 600. 00 572 573 I I 574 575 576 577 578 570 Genuine Imitation Strips of whalebone, cut and prepared Corks, 50 millimeters long and over Corks, under 50 millimeters long Other manufactures of cork wood Scientific and philosophical apparatus and instruments, surgical, mathematical, optical, physical, and nautical. Spectacles, eye-glasses, magnifying glasses, single and double opera glasses. Manufactures of ivory and shell : Combs Billiard balls Piano keys Cigar cases and other objects Articles of bone, horn, wood, hard india-rubber, ivory, fictitious tor- ! toise shell not otherwise denom- inated. Fans and hand-screens in ivory, tor- toise shell, or macro. The same in other materials Brushes, common, or wood, having vegetable fibers or whalebone. The same, with bristles or horsehair . . Brushes, fine or bone, ivory or metal . . Buttons, porcelain, jet, glass, without setting. Buttons, pierced (for pantaloons), in metal, alloy, papier machC, cast iron. Buttons, in glass set, molded horn, corozzo, buffalo horn, gilt metal, silvered, plated, oxidized or nick- "eled, covered with silk, cloth, or other material. Buttons, in mother-of-pearl, ivory, or shell. Toys -- Matches, imported for account of the com- pany sole lessee of the monopoly for the sale of matches : In wood In other material (The importation of matches by private persons is prohibited.) Human hair, manufactured Millinery goods, especially head-dresses, hats, and bonnets Artificial flowers L mbrellas and parasols : Cotton Alpaca Silk Articles composed of materials subject to various duties, not specifically set down in the tariff in this form, shall pay the duty on that portion of the mixture bear- ing the heaviest dues, except when such portion can be easily separated, or when such portion merely constitutes an accessory to the whole Objects for collections, not in commerco. . 20, 000. 00 3, 000. 00 500. 00 Units. Per 100 kilos. do Per piece — do — do ...do Per 100 kilos . ..do 200. 00 ..do 100. 00 5 °‘ 7 . .do 12. 00 0.4 ..do 30. 00 ) . . do 20. 00 V 5.0 . . do 5. 00 ) ..do Free 1, 200. 00 15, 000. 00 9, 500. 00 825. 00 20, 500. 00 15, 000. 00 700. 00 600. 00 675. 00 do do do do do do ....do do ..do ..do ..do ..do ..do ..do ..do Per 100 kilos } mooif;;^ 3. 200. 00 1. 200. 00 1 , 000 . 00 2. 50 4. 50 10. 00 ...do do do Per piece . .do do Duty. Frcs. Cts. 35. 00 Duty on cloth 0. 40 0.75 0.35 1.20 Free 150. 00 625. 00 625. 00 625. 00 1, 250. 00 190. 00 1, 250. 00 300. 00 37. 50 75. CO 125. 00 20. 00 50.00 150. 00 350. 00 60. 00 12. 00 20. 00 Free Free . Free . 0. 25 0. 50 1.25 Free ■8-s •sa e 2 £ JO J® «# W > Pr. ct. 5.8 12.4 4.2 6.5 23.0 6.0 20.0 7.0 6.0 > to 22.0 I - 10.0 10.0 12.5 REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 629 Statement showing the customs valuations of goods entered into France for consumption during the year 1883, the specific duties collected upon these goods, and the computed rela- tion between the specific duties to the value of articles as fixed by the customs. Schedules of goods. Specific duties col- lected. Customs valuations. Average es- timated duty, ad valorem Animal matters : Francs . Francs. Per cent. Live animals 5, 916, 025 220, 686, 921 2.7 Animal products 3, 380, 718 1, 048, 781, 151 0.3 Fish 1, 520, 956 70, 346, 521 2.2 Raw material of medicine and perfumery 120, 742 7, 383, 657 1.6 Hard substances for carving 120,217 23, 402, 725 0.5 Total 11, 058, 658 1, 370, 600, 975 0.8 Vegetable substances: Farinaceous food 7, 232, 257 458, 704, 155 1.6 Fruits and seeds 5,011,078 258, 813, 999 1.9 Colonial produce 183, 794. 749 272. 428, 965 67.6 Vegetable oils and juices 2, 407, 894 104; 055, 933 2.3 Medicinal plants 100, 172 13, 932, 236 0.7 Wood, common 81, 909 217, 601, 820 28 191,527 0.0 Wood, exotic 53, 359 0.2 Filaments, stems, and fruit for manufacture 125, 453 305, 635, 645 0.0 Dyeing and tanning stuffs 50, 095 17, 171, 996 78, 695, 282 0.3 Sundry produce and waste 612, 579 0.8 Total 199,469,545 1, 755, 231, 558 11.3 Mineral substances : Stones, oarths, and combustible mineral substances (especially petroleum) 35, 605, 817 272, 558, 480 13.0 Metals 9, 181, 435 186, 479, 867 4.8 Total 44, 787, 252 459, 038, 347 9.7 Manufactures : Chemicals 1, 776, 402 70, 453, 322 2.5 Dyes, prepared • 606, 281 38, 093, 512 1.6 Colors and paints 448, 129 4,167, 787 10. 1 Various compounds 1, 372, 717 13, 3. r 0, 249 10.3 Beverages 23, 910, 590 418, 306, 890 5.7 Pottery , glass and crystal 1, 574, 191 19, 788, 083 7.9 Yarns and threads, all kinds 5, 949, 669 78, 829, 594 7.5 Fabrics, all kinds 20, 906, 915 216, 547, 371 9.7 Paper, and manufactures of 1, 625, 595 34, 433, 034 4.7 Skins and furs, dressed and manufactured 1,446, 543 49, 623, 240 2.9 Manufactures of metals 9, 523, 495 145, 450, 188 6.6 Arms, powder, and ammunition 483, 230 3, 269, 772 14.8 Furniture and musical instruments 1, 095, 227 18, 389, 582 6.0 Matting, basket work, and cordage 471, 374 28, 091, 869 1.7 Works in various substances 3, 268, 589 80, 183, 417 4.1 Total 74, 458, 947 1, 218, 977, 910 6.1 630 REFORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Alphabetical index of the articles specified in the French general customs tariff. Articles. Abaca or Manila hemp Abaca or Manila yarn Abaca or Manila tissues Accordions Acetates Copper Iron Lead Potash Soda Acids: Arsenic Benzoic Boric Carbolic Citric G-allic Hydrochloric Nitric Oleic Oxalic Phosphoric Picric Stearic Sulphuric Tartaric • Agates Agricultural machines Alabaster and manufactures of Albumen Albums : Alcohols Alcohol, amylic Alizarine Alkali, volatile Almonds Aloes Alpaca, hair of the Alpaca, yarn of Alpaca, tissues of Alpaca, carded, combed Alum Aluminate of soda Aluminium Aluminium, manufactures of Amber Ammoniac and salts of Ammunitions Amomum Amylic, alcohol Anchors Anchovies Aniline Anise seed Animals, living Animal substances for perfumery and medicines Antimony : Ore, regulus, and sulphuret of Liver of Oxides and salts Apparatus : For chemical uses Scientific Apples and pears, dried Argentan (German silver) Argentan manufactures of Argols Arms Arseniates of potash and soda Arsenic Arsenic, sulphide of Articles of fashion Articles, not. otherwise specified, com- posed of two or more materials . £2 134 339 363 531 233 233 233 233 233 218 218 218 257 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 271 218, 299 218 218 162 464 303 412 313 313 272 237 112 22 347 404 343 236 235 185 437 180 229£ 512 93, 590 234 494 45 257 82 1 207 246 .246 467, 562 560 315 205 509 256 510 238 208 255 | 575 ; Articles. Ashes : Of beet root Blue and green... Gold and silver . . Vegetable Asphaltum Asses Axles Axminster carpets . . B. Ballast, iron Balls, blue Balsams Barberry Barks : Fuster Lime tree Mats and plaits of Medicinal Peruvian Sumac Tan Barley, grain and flour Barrels, empty Basketmakers ware Bassoons Beads, glass — Bed ticking, cotton Beer Beet root — Beet root, ashes of — « Belts, leather, for machines Benzine Berlin blue Berries : For dyeing and tanning Juniper - . Laurel Not otherwise specified — Beverages Bicarbonate of soda ; Billiard balls j Biscuits: Sea Sugar Bismuth Bitumen Black bone Black (color) Blacking Black lead (plumbago) . . Bladder, fish Blankets : Cotton Woolen Blonde, laces Blue, Berlin Boards for floors Boats and hulls of Boilers : Copper Steam Other Bolting cloth Bolts and nuts, iron I Bono black Bones : Calcined Of cattle Manufactures of, u. o. d j Bonnets, wool Bonnets, millinery Books Boots and bootees 578 i Borax II S 1 4.40 ( 6 90 ) 3 71 10 94 1 15.40 ....do '.. 24 5 71 16 66 1 2. 92 — do 30 7 14 42 84 1 6 1 23 37 1 1.C0 1 33 1 04 1 4. ; 2 1. 50 34 2 38 1 7. 00 2. 50 59 4 52 1 7. G6 2. 50 59 3 09 1 5. 24 2. 50 59 2 96 1 5. 02 644 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Relation of specific duties to the value in Germany — Continued. Articles. Unit. Rates of duty. Estimated value of goods im- ported. Relation of du- ties to value. [ ROUGHLY -WORKED METALS— continued. * I Marks. ■ Raw plates and sheets of malleable iron 100 kilos net. 3 $0 71 $2 85 1 : 3. 78 5 1 19 ; 8 67 1 : 7. 92 Plates and sheets of malleable iron, polished, var- 5 1 19 9 52 1 : 8 do 3 71 do 3 71 5 82 1 : 8. 19 6 1 42 7 14 1 : 5. 03 do 3 71 7 96 1 : 11. 12 do 6 1 42 11 90 1 : 10. 55 do .. 3 71 49 98 1 : 70. 39 . do . 6 1 42 42 84 1 : 30. 16 do . . . 12 2 85 31 89 1 : 11. 19 .do 12 2 85 45 22 1 : 15. 86 12 2 85 107 10 1 : 37 MANUFACTURES OF METAL (EXCErT MACHINES. &C.). 2. 50 59 , 2 61 1 : 4. 42 ....do 3 71 6 18 1 : 8. 58 do 3 71 do 3 71 do 3 71 i 2 61 1 : 3. 63 . . do . . 3 71 ] 2 85 1 : 3. 95 do 3 71 1 4 99 1 : 6. 93 3 71 11 90 1 : 16.53 Rolled and drawn pipes and tubes of iron _ . . do 5 1 19 5 95 1 : 5 Wire tacks do 10 2 35 ! 4 76 1 : 2. 03 "Fine manufactures of iron, u. o. p. f _ do 24 5 71 1 66 64 1 : 11. 67 Needles ... .do 60 14 28 495 00 1 : 41. 66 Writing pens do 60 14 28 238 00 1 : 16. 66 Types _ _ do 3 71 83 30 1 : 117. 32 Manufactures of lead: Coarse do 6 1 42 11 90 1 : 8. 38 Fine do . . . 24 5 71 24 99 1 : 4. 38 Manufactures of zinc: Coarse ....do 6 1 42 16 66 1 : 11. 73 Fine do 24 5 71 41 65 1 : 7. 29 Manufactures of tin : Coarse . _ . .do 6 1 42 54 74 1 : 38 55 Fine- also lacquered __ ..... ..do . 24 5 71 114 24 1 : 20. 07 Coarse manufactures of copper and brass ....do - 18 I 4 28 49 98 1 : 11. 67 Articles of aluminium, nickel, alfenide, &c do 60 1 14 28 123 76 1 : 8. 47 LUMBER AND CABINET WOOD. Roughly- worked European : Hard 0. 20 04 1 40 1 : 35 Soft 0. 20 04 71 1 : 177. 5 Hard, sawn ... ...... do 1 238 1 90 1 : 7. 93 Soft sawn ............... ............ 1 238 63 1 : 26. 25 Not European wood : . Fongh (hnv cedar, cocoa, ebony) do 0.10 02 5 71 1 : 285 Sawn (cedar) do 0.25 05 7 61 | 1 : 152 Whalebone in rough staves ....do 10 2 38 523 60 1 1 : 220 . Plates of born do 3 71 21 42 i 1 : 30. F7 TT npeeled basket, willow . do 0. 40 09 3 57 ! 1 ; 39. 67 Peeled basket willow do 3 71 4 28 1 : 6 03 W ooden furniture do 3 71 35 70 j 1 : 50. 28 Wood cut in veneers do 10 2 38 Coarse toys, not colored do 10 2 38 ! 23 80 i V 10 Fine wood articles do 30 7 14 47 60 1 : 6. 67 Basketmakers’ articles, fine.. - do 30 7 14 49 98 1 : 7 Sievemakers’ articles: Coarse do 8 1 90 28 56 1 : 15. 03 Fine ...... do 24 5 71 57 12 1 1 : 11. 18 Straw plait, inys ...do 18 4 28 166 60 ! 1 : 38. 93 Sparterro goods do 90 21 42 228 48 i 1 : 10. 67 TAPER AND PASTEBOARD. Half worked materials for paper-making, of wood, straw, esparto, No. 17 English do 24 5 71 50 93 1 Above 17 to 45 English do 30 7 14 57 12 1 8 Above 45 to 60 English do 36 8 56 70 21 1 8.20 Above 60 to 79 English do 42 9 99 91 63 1 9. 17 Above 79 ... .do 48 11 42 123 76 1 10. 84 Treble or more twist, raw, bleached, dyed . . . do 70 16 60 101 15 1 6. 09 Multiple-twisted sewing thread ....do 70 16 60 178 50 1 10. 75 Wicks, unplaited ... do 24 5 71 30 74 1 5. 38 Linen yarn : Not dyed, not printed, not bleached — Up to No. 5 English do 5 1 19 13 09 | 1 11 Above 5 to 8 English do l 19 | 19 04 i 1 16 Above 8 to 20 English do 6 1 42 ; 29 75 ! 1 20. 95 Above 20 to 35 English do 9 2 14 41 65 1 19. 46 Above 35 12 2 85 90 00 1 31. 58 Dyed, printed, bleached: Up to No. 20, English 12 2 85 39 27 ! 1 13. 78 Above 20, to 35 15 3 57 : 52 36 1 14. 95 Above 35 do 20 4 76 89 25 ! 1 18. 75 Thread . do 70 16 66 .107 10 1 6.42 Silk, not dyed Free, j Floss silk, not dyed, waste of dyed silk .... do Free, j Silk wadding 24 U-I 1 5 71 190 40 1 : : 33.35 Silk, floss silk, dyed, lacets ....do 36 8 56 737 80 1 : : 86. 19 Yarn of cattle hair, single or double do 3 0 71 ! 21 42 1 ; ; 30. 17 Woolen yarn, single, not dyed Genappe mohair alpacca 3 0 71 j 111 86 1 : : 157. 55 64-6 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Relation of specific duties to the value in Germany — Continued. Articles. TEXTILE AND FELT INDUSTBY— CLOTHES— Continued. Other raw woolen yam, single, not dyed Woolen yarn, single, dyed, (Genappe, &c.) Other woolen yarn, single, bleached Woolen yarn, "double, not dyed (Genappe, &c.) ... Other woolen yams, double, not dyed (raw) Woolen yarn, double, dyed (Gennape, &c.) Other woolen yams, double, dyed, bleached Woolen yarn, treble, or more twist (Genappe, &c.) Other woolen yarn Cotton waddings Wool waddings BOPEMAKEBS’ ABTICLES. Hopes, girts, braces, hose Other rope maker’s work, dyed, bleached Cotton fishing-nets, new Coarse and dyed foot mgs Foot rugs ot wool and yarns of hair of cattle Foot mgs of wool or other animal hair (except of cattle and horses) Asphaltum felts, roofing-felt Coarse felts, not printed, not dyed Other felts, not printed Woolen felts, felt articles, printed MISCELLANEOUS ABTICLES. Oil-cloths of wool, and shoes of cloth ledges and shreds Horse-hair plaitings, also mixed with other spin- nings Cotton tissue, raw, close Quite coarse tissue of raw spinning of cotton- waste Cotton webbings, bleached, close, also finished, except cut velvets Cotton cut velvets Cotton tulle, raw and not figured Cotton (webbings) tissue, not close, raw, except curtain stuffs and tulles Cotton curtain stuffs, bleached and finished Linen, ticking, drilling, not dyed, not printed, not bleached, containing in the warp and woof to- gether on a surface of 4 square centimeters: TJp to 40 threads Above 40 to 80 threads Above 80 to 120 threads Above 120 threads Linen, ticking, drilling, dyed, printed, bleached, &c„ containing in warp and woof together on a surface of 4 square centimeters : Up to 120 threads Above 120 threads Linen damask Quite coarse webbings, of raw spinnings of silk- waste Piece goods, &.c., of pure silk, floss silk, also com- bined with metallic threads Manufactures of silk, mixed with other spinning materials and also with metallic threads Stuffs of silk and floss-silk, in connection with cot- ton Stuffs of silk, in connection with linen and wool.. Woolen cloths, n. o. p. f. : Weighing more than 200 grams per 1 square me; er of tho surface woven 1 Weighing less than 200 grams ; Manufactures of wool, printed (except rugs, felts, ; hosiery) : Weighing more than 200 grams per 1 square meter woven Weighing less than 200 grams. .'. Unit. Hates of duty. Estimated value of goods im- ported. Helation of du- ties to value. 100 kilos net Marks. 8 $0 71 $99 96 1 : : 140. 79 do 8 0 71 128 42 1 : : 181. 15 ....do 3 0 71 110 67 1 ; ; 155. 87 do 3 0 71 139 23 1; ; 196. 08 do 3 0 71 121 38 1 : : 170. 96 24 5 71 142 80 1 ; ; 25 24 5 71 142 80 1 ; ; 25 • do 24 5 71 147 56 1 ; : 25.84 24 5 71 119 00 1 : ; 20.84 do 1.50 0 35 35 70 1 ; : 102 3 0 71 85 68 1 : : 120. 68 ....do 24 5 71 21 42 1 3. 75 10 2 38 34 51 1 14.5 3 0 71 59 50 1 83. 80 do 24 5 71 28 56 1 5 do 100 23 80 35 70 1 1.5 100 23 80 83 30 1 3.5 3 0 71 7 76 1 6.70 do 3 0 71 59 50 1 83. 80 do 100 23 80 95 2 1 4 do . ... 100 23 80 190 40 1 8 135 32 13 107 10 1 : : 3.33 48 11 42 214 20 1 ; ; 18.75 ....do 80 19 04 69 02 1 ; : 3.62 10 2 38 20 33 1: : 8.50 do 100 23 80 78 54 l! : 3.30 120 28 50 216 58 1 : : 7.58 do 80 19 04 630 70 1: ; 33.12 120 28 56 110 67 1 ; : 3.82 230 54 74 221 34 1 : 4.04 ....do 12 2 85 42 84 1 : : 15.03 24 5 71 73 78 1: ; 12.92 30 8 56 92 82 1 ; 10.59 60 14 28 154 70 1 : 10.83 60 14 28 119 00 1 a 31 120 28 50 238 00 1 8. 33 150 35 70 154 70 1 4.33 10 2 38 142 80 1 ; : 60 do 800 190 40* 1, 713 60 1 ; 9 800 190 40 833 00 1 : 4.38 450 107 10 952 00 1 : 8.88 450 107 10 833 00 1 : 7.78 ...do 135 32 13 209 44 1 : a 52 . . do 220 52 30 273 70 1 5.23 150 35 70 261 80 1 : 7.33 do 220 | 52 30 | 313 30 1 : 5.98 REVISION OF THE TARIFF, 647 Relation of specific duties to the value in Germany — Continued. Articles. Unit. Rates of duty. Estimated value of goods im- ported. Relation of du- ties to value. miscellaneous articles— continued. Maries. Woolen plushes 100 kilos net. 150 $35 70 $238 00 1 : : 6.67 W oven woolen shawls : do 300 71 00 226 10 1 : 3.17 450 107 70 690 20 1 : 6.44 Hosiery: do 120 28 56 285 60 1 : : 10 do 100 23 80 190 40 1 : : 8 Of silk ...do 800 190 40 2, 618 00 1 : : 13.75 Of half silk ...do 800 190 40 1,071 00 1 : 5.63 do 100 23 80 249 90 1 : : 10.50 Wool, printed— Weighing more than 200 grams per 1 do 150 35 70 238 00 1: 6.67 do 220 52 36 595 00 1 : 11 Lace and button makers’ work: ....do 120 28 56 202 30 1 7. 08 . . . .do 100 23 80 214 20 1 9 Of silk do 800 190 00 833 00 1 4. 38 Of half silk ....do 450 107 10 595 00 1 5. 56 do 150 35 70 261 80 1 7. 33 Laces, embroideries, blondes : do 350 83 30 952 00 1 11.4 do . 800 190 40 7, 140 00 1 37.5 do 150 35 70 1, 904 00 1 533. 39 do 300 71 40 714 00 1 10 Ready-made wearing apparel and underclothes, millinery, n. o. p. f : Silk and floss silk . do 1,200 285 60 1, 666 00 1 5.84 Embroidered la.ee clothes do 1, 200 285 60 3, 570 00 1 12. 5 Half silk and millinery do 675 160 65 714 00 1 4.44 Clothes and millinery of tissues coated with caoutchouc . . . .do 130 30 74 357 00 1 ; : 11.61 Linen blouses do 60 14 28 71 40 1 : 5 Linen and cotton under clothes do 150 35 70 261 80 1 : 7.33 Silk bats, for gentlemen .... do 300 71 40 1,428 00 1 : : 20 Felt hats, for gentlemen do 180 42 08 476 00 1 : : 11. 12 Bonnets, trimmed (except of straw) piece 1 23 4 76 1 ; : 20.70 Ornamental feathers, dressed 100 kilos net. 900 214 00 2, 380 00 1 : : 11.12 Artificial flowers do 900 214 00 11 90 1 ; : 5. 56 Artificial flowers, parts do 900 214 00 119 00 1 : : 0.56 Caoutchouc articles : Caoutchouc threads, n. o. p. f _ do 3 71 285 60 1 : : 402. 25 Caoutchouc threads, overspun do 40 9 52 357 00 1 : : 37.5 Waxed cloth, leather cloth do 30 7 14 52 12 1 : : 7.30 Bookbinders’ cloth _ do 30 7 14 59 50 1 : 8.33 Waxed muslin, waxed taffeta do 50 11 90 119 00 1 : 10 Manufactures of caoutchouc, coarse, not lac- quered do 40 9 52 142 80 1 : : 15 Ebonite (hard rubber) goods do 40 9 52 238 00 1 : 25 Manufactures of caoutchouc, flne ... .do 60 14 28 226 00 1 : 15.83 Tissues, coated with caoutchouc do 90 21 42 238 00 1 : : 11.11 Hosiery, in connection with caoutchouc do. 90 21 42 33« 00 1 : 15.55 Trimmings, in connection with caoutchouc — do 90 21 42 333 00 1 : 15.65 Carriages and sleighs, with leather, and upholster- ers’ work ....do 150 35 70 452 20 1 : 12.67 Furniture, upholstered, uncovered do 30 7 14 47 60 1 : 6.67 Fui uiturc, upholstered, covered do 40 9 52 71 40 1 : 75 Locomotivo engines do 8 1 90 20 94 1 ; : 11.02 Portable engines do 8 1 90 20 23 1 : 10.65 Boilers of malleable iron do 5 1 19 8 33 1 : 7 Other machines : Chiefly of wood ...do 3 71 16 66 1 : 23.46 Chiefly of cast iron do 3 71 13 56 1 : 19.10 Chiefly of malleable iron do 5 1 19 14 75 1 : 12. 39 Chiefly of other metals, not precious do 8 1 90 56 40 1 : 29.68 Fnrtepianos, key boards ....do 30 7 14 57 12 1 : 8 Other musical instruments do 30 7 14 83 30 1 : 67 Spectacles and opera-glasses do 120 28 56 761 60 1 : 27. 02 Parts of clocks and watches, and movements do 60 14 28 595 00 1 : 41.67 Pendules and clocks 200 47 06 142 80 1 : 3 Fire-arms 60 14 28 214 20 1 : 15 648 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Relation of specific duties to the value in Germany — Continued. Articles. Unit. Rates of duty. Estimated value of goods im- ported. Relation of du- ties to value. FAXCY ARTICLES. Precious stones, also imitations, corals, pearls, not set 100 kilos net Marks. 60 $14 28 142 80 $1, 190 00 7, 140 00 1 : 83. 33 Fancy goods, wholly or partly of precious metals, genuine pearls, corals, &c . _ _ do 60 1 : 5 Gold and silver leaf, not genuine ....do .. Fancy goods, wholly or partly of amber, celluloid, ivory, agate, jet, lava, meerschaum, mother of pearl, and tortoise shells, of not precious metals gilded or silvered, or covered with gold or sil- ver, &c do 200 47 60 476 00 1 : 10 Fancy articles (gent’s and ladies’ ornaments, arti- cles of toilet, &c.), wholly or partly of alumi- nium, of other base metals, but of fine workman- ship, &c . 200 47 60 285 60 1 : 6 Fancy articles of wav _ _ . .do . . 200 47 60 220 15 1 : 4. 63 Wax beads ....do 120 28 56 618 80 1 : 21. 32 Umbrellas 120 28 56 214 20 1 : 7. 5 Fans do 200 47 60 380 80 1 : 8 Hairdressers’, &c., articles do 200 47 60 571 20 1: 12 INDEX TO ARTICLES, A. Acids, sulphuric and other Agricultural implements Albumen Alcohol Alcoholic preparations Ale * Alizarine assistant Alizarine j. Alkalies (see also “Soda” and “Potash”) Alkaloids Almonds Alloys Alum Ammonia , Ammoniac, sal Ammunition Aniline oils Aniline dyes and colors ( see also “Dyes”) Animals, live Animal charcoal Antimony, regulus of Antiquities Art collections Art, works of Articles of food Wholly or partially manufactured, Gimps Ginger ale Ginger, root Glass: Beveled Plate and cylinder. Glassware Glauber salts Gloves, kid, and other. Glue ; Glycerine Gold size . Goat hair Gorings Granite Grapes Grasses Green fruit Gunny cloth Guns Gun materials O. 21, 23, 53, 291,323 - 135-138 122, 161, 192 413,414 .21, 291, 323 502 217 143, 145, 534 142, 143, 145, 155, 161, 460, 521 . 147 __ . 178,195 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 45, 48, 49, 67, 68, 477-485 _ ""II'IIIIIIIH” 193 183 30,291 323 122 136, 213, 539-540 136 139, 212, 213, 539-542 95-100 429 429 Hair, goat Hair cloth Hamburg edgings Handkerchiefs Hardware H. * 30,291 _ 21 15, 46, 63, 65, 67, 68, 490 496 11,21,25, 292 519, 533* INDEX TO ARTICLES. 653 Page. Harness 515-520 Hassocks 292,323 Hats - T 291,314, 322 Hat-bands 413 Hat materials 24 Hemp, manufactures of 21, 22, 104-110, 292, 323, 460,489 Hoops: Iron 349, 351, 375 Steel - 370,372 Hosiery 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 46, 67, 68, 271, 296, 486,497 Hose, fire 100-103 Hydraulic hose — 100-103 I. Indigo i— - — 177, 181, 255 India rubber goods 21 Ingots, steel . 349, 351, 370 Ingots, cogged 349,351 Insertings - 22, 60 Iron: Hoops 349,351,375 Bar, scrap, &c 358, 359, 361, 372, 364, 375, 377 Ore. 355, 374, 376-392, 400, 403, 447, 452, 454, 526, 528, 531, 532 Pig 121, 355, 356, 356, 358, 361, 370, 376, 377, 400-409, 454, 455, 475, 522-525, 531 Plate 374 Pyrites 393 Sheet 349, 350, 370, 371, 374, 375, 378, 379, 382, 387, 390, 531 Steel cotton-ties 349-351, 376, 377, 530 Taggers 349, 350, 370, 371, 374, 377, 378, 381, 382, 387, 390, 391 Wire rods - 353, 354, 370, 371, 542 Iron and steel, manufacturers of- --347-392, 409, 412, 416, 417, 427, 431, 432, 460, 521, 533 Isinglass 168 Italian cloth 2Q, 23, 45, 316, 322 Jackets Japan gold size Jet, and imitation of Jewelry Jute Jute, manufacturers of. Kaolin Knit goods Laces Lastings Lead Lead, acetate of. Lead ores Leather goods __ Lemons Lemon peel Limes Linen goods Linen hose Linings Linoleum Liquors Lumber J. 323 183 21 .21,138, 139 95-100, 437, 489 .21, 22, 94-100, 104, 110, 114, 292, 323, 489 K. 196 20, 76, 77-79, 271, 272, 292, 300, 314, 315, 322 L. .20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 46, 48, 60, 64, 65, 72, 291, 292, 495 25, 266, 477 195,196, 410,516 193 177, 196 21,459, 515, 520 212, 539-542 - _._209, 210,539 217 21, 22, 46, 53, 67, 105-110, 489, 490 i 100-103 23,45,322 23 500-506, 545-547 344, 427, 437 654 INDEX TO ARTICLES. M. Page. Machinery — 421, 486, 533 Manila 489 Manufactures: Cotton. ( See “Cotton manufactures.”) Flax. (See “Flax, manufacturers of.”) Iron and steel 347-392, 409, 412, 416, 417, 427, 431, 432, 460, 520-533 Jute. (See “Jute, manufacturers of.”) Marble 122,123-127 Silks. (See “Silks.”) Wood 459 Wool 17, 20-23, 31, 45, 46, 53, 116, 232-242, 249, 252, 254, 259, 265-267, 269-336, 432, 462, 470-476, 546-7. Mats 23,113, 292, 323 Mattings 114, 117 Marble 123-127 Menthol Medals — Medicines Mineral waters Mitts Mohair cloth _ _ Molasses Morphia Morphine Mungo Musical boxes - - Musical goods __ Muslins, Swiss _ Mustard - 205-207 469 441 161 23,60 25,34,477 129, 546-547 199 198 291 - 140-141 .140-141,459 ~ 495,496 216 N. Nails- — — 361, 372, 374 Nets • 25, 291, 323 Nickel 412, 413, 414 Nitro-benzole 538 Nitrite of soda 538 Noils 290,291 Nuts - — 210, 539, 541, 546-7 O. Oatmeal 216 Oils, essential and other. Oils, aniline Oil cloth Olive oil 178, 183, 192, 194, 198, 199, 268, 441 - — 538 23, 113 192, 204, 209, 212, 216, 4'41 Opium 183 Oranges 212, 213, 539-542 Orange peel. . 209, 210, 217; 539 Ores 193, 355, 374, 376, 392-400, 403, 437, 447, 452, 454, 526, 528, 531, 532 Oreide 414 P. Paints Paintings Paper Papier-machA Paris-white— Parasols Peas Peanuts Pens, steel Pencils Pepper 177,187, 193-196 460, 466, 469, 470 220, 459 21 193, 195 13,14,21 135-138, 210, 212 541 420 21 216 INDEX TO ARTICLES. 655 Page. Percussion caps. — 429 Perfumery - 20, 21 Personal effects 430,442 Photographs 469 Piano-felt 260 Pickles - _ . 21G Pi g-iron _121^ 475, *522-525, 531 Pipes, tobacco 166, 192 Pistols 429 Plants 136 Plate glass 142-145, 155-161, 460, 521, 534 Plows, steel 421 Plums 539 Plushes 10, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34, 36, 441 Pocket-books 21 Pork - 427,462 Potash, bichromate and other 194-196, 197, 198, 199, 207, 208, 256 Portland cement 146 Powders: Polishing 177 Baking 180,192 Bleaching- 182 Toilet * 21 Prepared vegetables 216 Preserved fruits 216, 217, 539 Printing presses — 421 Provisions 112, 216, 459, 460 Prunes.. 210, 216, 539 Prunelles 539 Prussian blue 194 Putty .... 195 Pyrites, iron 193 Quinia, sulphate of. Quinine <1 178, 187 .178, 187, 190, 191, 199 Rags, woolen Railroad iron Raisins Ramie Regulus of antimony. Ribbons Rice Rubber goods Rugs K. 291 361. 411 210, 539 489 382 11, 20, 21, 23, 25, 46 509-512, 546-547 21 .21, 23, 113, 114, 292, 323 Sacks, grain Saddlery Sail, duck Salt Salts, Epsom, and other Salt, cake Salts, Glauber Sal ammoniac Saltpeter Santonine Satins Scarfs Scotch caps Scrap iron Scrap steel — Screws, wood 497 516, 517 490 121, 345, 437 195 178 178, 195 178, 192, 208 193 198, 199 1, 441 11,25,292 77-79 372, 374, 375, 377 374, 377 516,517 656 INDEX TO ARTICLES. Page. Screens - - - 292, 323 Serges 266 Shawls 11, 17, 20, 22, 25, 45, 271, 290, 292, 293, 300, 322 Sheet-iron and steel 349, 350, 370, 371, 374, 375, 378, 382, 387, 390, 531 Shirts 21,22,23 Shoddy , 271, 290, 291 Shooks 513-515 54-60, 67, 275, 277, 290, 293, 430, 441, 460, 477, 486-488, 546-7 Sisal grass 489 Smokers’ articles 217 Soap, Castile and other 21, 209, 212, 217, 513 Soda-water 502 Soda: Ash 121, 178, 180, 182, 184, 189, 513 Bicarbonate of 178, 180, 195 Bichromate of 256 Carbonate of - 178, 180, 195 Caustic 121, 178, 180, 182, 184, 192, 195, 513 Crystals 182 Phosphate of 195 Sal !- 178, 180, 185, 189, 513 Sulphate of 178 Nitrite of 538 Spiegeleisen 377, 406 Spelter — 382, 414 Spices 193, 216, 460 Spirits: Distilled 189, 190, 537, 545-547 Methylated 1 190 Sponges 188 Sporting articles .. 429 Spool cotton 67, 87, 89-94 Stationery 217 Statuary —123, 125, 126, 460, 466-470 Steel: Blooms Blanks, billets, &c Hoops ( see also “Cotton-ties ”) Ingots Manufactures of Pens Plates Plows 349, 351, 370, 520 349-351 370, 372 370 72, 73, 120, 349-351, 372, 427 420 120, 371, 372, 374 — 421 Rails Rods Wire rods Stereotype plates. _ Strychnine Sugar Sugar of lead Sugared fruits Suspenders Sulphate of copper. Sundries Sumatra tobacco . _ Swiss mull 361, 432, 474 411 __352, 353, 354, 371, 542 223 189,399 127-135, 437, 514, 546-7 T99 210, 217, 539 291, 323 199, 256 21 - -166,507-509 84, 495 T. Table-covers 22,292 Tagger’s iron and tin 349, 350, 370, 371, 374, 377, 378, 381, 382, 387, 389, 390, 391 Talc, crude 196 Talmas 323 Tannin 194, 198, 199 INDEX TO ARTICLES. 657 Page. Tarletans 84-87 Tassels 21, 22, 291, 323 Tea._ 458 Threads 21, 67, 104-110, 490 Tin crystals 196 Tin - 353, 414, 516 Tin plates 121, 352, 353, 371, 374, 376, 377, 380, 381, 383-392. 402, 460, 531 Tobacco 166, 460, 506^509, 545-547 Toilet articles 20 Toilet powders 21 Toluidine 538 Tools, carpenters’ and other 422, 533 Tooth-brushes 199, 204 Toys 21, 117 Tow , 105,489 Trees and shrubs 460 Trimmings 20, 21, 23, 46, 120, 291, 323 Twines 104, 110, 490 Ulsters Umbrellas * Underwear Unenumerated articles. Upholstery goods Varnish Vegetables: Canned Prepared Veilings Velvets Vitriol U. 323 T3~14, 21,50, 260 21, 26, 76, 77,271 184 34, 35, 36, 62 V. — 182 — 210-212 216 60 10, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 46 194, 256, 413 W. Walnuts — 539 Watches _„21, 138, 139, 459 Watch-guards 139 Watch-materials 139 Waters: Mineral 161 Soda 502 Wash-blue ' 177 Waste — 230, 290, 291, 326 Wearing apparel 21, 45, 277, 318, 322, 442 Webbings 21, 291, 296, 323, 517 Whiting 194, 195 Wines and spirits 162-164, 441, 462, 500-506, 545-7 Wire-rods: Iron 354, 370, 542 Steel 349,371,542 Wood screws 516 Wool. -.22, 30, 45, 76, 111, 112, 116, 223-251, 253, 256-260, 262, 267, 269, 270-272-336, 437, 470-476, 497, 499, 518 Wool: Noils 290,291 Waste , 230,290,291,326 Woolen manufactures 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 45, 46, 53, 116, 232-242, 249-252, 253 254-259, 267-336, 432, 460, 470-476, 546, 547 Woolen rags 291 Worsteds ^22, 23, 31, 32, 45, 260, 266, 271, 275, 294, 298, 300, 313, 322, 473, 517 W orks of art 466, 470 S, Ex. 72 42 658 INDEX TO ARTICLES. Page. X. Xylidine 538 Y. Yams 20, 21, 25, 31, 45, 67, 87, 89-94, 100, 103, 110, 259, 260, 270, 271, 274 275, 277, 289, 290, 291, 294, 298, 300, 314, 322, 413, 477, 487, 488, 490 Yellow metal 414 Z. Zinc 382, 414, 533 Zinc, oxide of 195 INDEX TO NAMES- A. Page. Abbott, J. H. , & Co. Woolens and yarns 294 Ahlborn, Henry. Bronze powder 419, 420 Aikin, Walter. Woolen tariff 486 Albany Aniline Company. Coal-tar , dyes, and colors 534-538 Amalgamated Association Iron Workers (Mahoning lodge). Iron and steel. - 374 Amalgamated Association Iron Workers (sub lodges). Iron and steel 377 Amazon Hosiery Company. Hosiery 296, 297 American Bronze Powder Manufacturing Company _ 417 American Carpet Manufacturers’ Asssociation 115, 116 American Cutlery Company. Cutlery 426 American Iron and Steel Association. Iron and steel 347, 374, 521 American Nickel Works. Nickel, &e 412 American Pocket Cutlery Association. Cutlery 423 American Tinned Plate Association. Tin plates-- ± 386 American Woolen Company, Barry Mills. Woolens 295 Andres, Jochams. Iron and glass 521 Arguimbau, Joseph L. Fruits 539-541 Arkwright Club. Cotton goods 79, 80 Arnold, Constable & Co. Dry-goods 22 Arnold, Poliak & Co. Cigars 165 Ashland Coal and Iron Railway Company. Pig-iron 407 Auburn Tool Company. Tools 422 B. Bailey, John T., & Co. Burlaps 94 Ballerein & Co. Glass 143 Baltimore Iron Company. Pig-iron 408 Barstow & Whitelaw. Chemicals 186 Barrett; L. M., & Co. Woolens 252 Beach, Charles M. Wool and woolens 278-290 Beach & Co. Dye-stuffs, woolens, &c 255 Beaver Falls Cutlery Company. Cutlery 426 Belding Bros. & Co. Silks . _ 1 Bell, Isaac, United States minister to Netherlands. Tobacco 508 Belmont Nail Company. Nails 373 Biddle Hardware Company. Cutlery 428 Bierhoff, Joseph. Bronze powder 419, 420 BischofF, Henry, & Co. liice 509 Black, Alexander. Silks, &c 39 Black, D., & Co. Specific duties 441 Bolgiano, J., & Sons. Seeds 137 Bolton, Ogden. Tool-steel 373 Bower, Henry. Drugs and chemicals 179 Bradley, Thos. W. Cutlery 423 Brewer, J. H. Earthenware 155 Brier Hill Iron and Coal Company. Metals 373 Bridgeport Knife Company. Cutlery 426 Briggs, Richard. China and glass ware 147 Bringhurst, J. R. Tagger's iron 371 British Hosiery Company. Hosiery 497 Brooke, Horace L. Pig-iron 408 659 660 INDEX TO NAMES. Page. Brussels Tapestry Company. Upholstery goods 62 Bullock, George. Worsted goods - 298 Burt, S. W. Oranges 213 Burke, John. Wines and liquors 503 Burgess, J., & Sons. Tooth-brushes 199-203 Byard, W. V. Acids 196-197 C. Cable Flax Mills. Twines, yarns, &c 104 Campbell, D. R. Woolens 295 Campbell, Samuel. Cotton goods 83 Canby, Gilpin & Co. Tooth-brushes 203 Carnegie, Thomas M. Metals — 373 Carpenaer, John N. Woolens 322 Carson, W. K., & Co. Sugars 127 Caswell, Calvin. Wool. 228 Caswell, M. J. Sheep husbandry j. 229 Catlin, F. H. Cutlery 423 Cazenovia Woolen Company. Woolens 293 Chase, A. B. Tariff. 436, 437 Chaffanjon, Claude. Silks 486, 487 Charlottesville Woolen Mills. Wool and woolens - ’ 253 Chelsea Jute Mills. Burlaps 95-98 Cheney Brothers. Silks 486, 487 Clarke, Robert, & Co. Books ’ 218 Cobb, O. P. Nails 372 Codman & Hall. Soaps, oils, &c 209 Cole, Jos. E. Tariff 436, 437 Coleman, E. H. Tapestry 63 Coleman, Mead & Co. Hosiery 68 Colwell Lead Company. Pig lead 410 Comstock, R. W. Horseshoes 373 Comly, F. A. Pig-iron 407 Commercial Corporation of St. Galle. Embroideries 491, 494 Conant, Hezekiah. Tariff 436, 437 Conant Thread Company. Spool Cotton 87-89 Conshohocken Worsted Mills. Worsted 297 Consul-General United States at Paris. French tariff 593 Consul-General United States at Berlin. German tariff 639, 640 Consul United States at Horgen. Silks 55 Consul United States at St. Galle. Embroideries 491-494 Cook, Richard Y. Silks, gloves, &c 68 Cook, C. S. Earthenware 155 Cope, George W. Metals 365 Corliss, George H. Tariff 436, 437 Cowles, James L. Cutlery 427 Cowden, W. N. Wool 228 Coxe, W. E. C. Metals 365 Cramer, G. Dry plates 161 Crawford, Cree & Co. Wool 498 Curtis, Charles B. Works of art 466 Cutler Bros. & Co. Drugs and dyes 197 Cutler, C. R. Tariff 436, 437 Cutter, John D. Silks 9 D. Dammann, F. W. & E. Woolens 254 Davies, David L. 3fetals 377 Day, Horace W. Fruits 539-541 Dean, William. Tariff, woolens 470 De Barry, F. , & Co. Mineral waters, wines, c fee 161, 162 Deere & Co. Steel plows 421 De Freycinet, C. French tariff : 594 Delano, Columbus. Wool, tariff, &c 228, 438 De Luyties, F. O. Wines and liquors 503 INDEX TO NAMES. 661 Page. Denton & Cottier. Musical goods ~ - — . - - 141 De Pauw’s American Plate-Glass Works. Glass 158-161 Dexter, Lambert & Co. Silks 486, 487 Dike Brothers. Wool 230 Dodge, J. R. Wool statistics 249-251 Dobson, James. Woolen goods 322 Dolan, Thomas. Woolen goods 271, 322 Dolge, Alfred. Piano felt 260 Donnelly, J. R. Glass 144 Dreer, Henry A. Seeds, &c 136 Drown, William A. Umbrella silks 49 Dulany, Meyer & Co. Cigars, wines , &c 163 Du Vivier, C. A. Wines and liquors 503 E. Eastern Iron Ore Association. Iron ore Eastern Pig-Iron Association. Pig-iron Eberle, G. A. Linen hose Eckert, Henry S. Pig-iron Einstein, David L. Woolens Ellis, Knapp & Co. Umbrellas and parasols __ Ely, George H. Iron ore Estes & Lauriat. Books Eureka Fire Hose Company. Linen hose Evans, Rodger. Metals Everson, Hammond & Orr. Metals 392 402, 407 102 403, 407 252, 322 14 393 222 100-103 377 371 F. Fairbanks, Charles F. Carpets Fairchild, C. S., Assistant Secretary Treasury Far well, John V., & Co. Dry goods Faulkner, L. W. , & Sons. Woolens Felton, Samuel M. Metals Field, Marshall, & Co. Dry goods Fitzgerald, W. N. Carriages and harness Flesh, A. & D. Trimmings, &c Fletcher, Charles. Tariff Foreign Fruit Exchange of New York City. Fruits Foulds, Robert. Toys Franke, Louis j & Co. Silks Fraternity Druggists’ Ware Glass-Blowers’ League of the United States. Glass bottles Friedrichs, Robert. Steel rods , &c Frost, Rufus S. Woolens 115, 322 368 15 294 365 20 515 120 436, 437 538-541 117 486, 487 145 411, 542 322 G. Gallagher & Gilroy. Beveled glass - Galvey & Cando. Wines and liquors Gantz, Jones & Co. Drugs and chemicals Gessaman, George D. Metals Gibb, John. Embroideries Gibbons, W. G. Iron and steel Gibson, Parish & Co. Tariff Gilbert, Leariet. Woolen goods Giles, John C. Fruits Globe Rolling Mill Company. Metals Goldenburg, Simon. Embroideries Gonzenbach, E. Embroideries Goodell Company. Cutlery Gonzalez, Byass & Co. Wines and liquors Graef, Charles. Wines and liquors Greef & Co. Silks, specific duties, &c Greenwood, James. Metals Griffin, Robert S. Tariff 143 503 192 377 64, 65 530 440 322 539, 541 373 64 494, 496 426 503 503 51 373 466 , 466 662 INDEX TO NAMES. Page Griswold, A. B., & Co. Watches and jewelry 138 Grubb, Joseph C., & Co. Fire-arms 429 Gummey, Spering, Ingram & Co. Tin-plate 389 II. Hanger, C. Embroideries 64 Hague, T. O. Carpets 114 Hadley Company. Cotton yarns and threads 92, 93 Hall & Carpenter. Metals 386 Haldeman, Paris. Metals 365 Hamil & Booth. Silks 486, 487 Hardy, Alpheus H. , & Co. Fruits , &c 212 Harper, E. L., & Co. Pig-iron 409 Harper & Brothers. Books, &c 222 Harpster, David. Wool 228, 229 Hartley, H. A., & Company. Carpets 113 Hartman Steel Co. Wire rods 371 Hardt & Lindgens. Silks 28 Harter, M. D. Iron and steel 530 Harter, Isaac. Iron and steel 530 Harrison, Thomas S. Chemicals and drugs 179 Harrison, Havemeyer & Co. Sugar 129 Hayes, John L., secretary Wool Manufacturers’ Association -322, 330, 339 Hayes, James A., & Co. Fruits, &c 216, 217 Hawkins, Rush. Works of art 469 Healy&Co. Cotton goods „„„ 84,85 Heller & Merz. Coal-tar , dyes, and colors 534-538 Henderson, Robert. Fruits 539, 541 Heydorf, S. H. Glass 143 Hills Brothers. Dried fruits-- 209 Hirsh, J. Embroideries 64 Hodges Brothers. Undervaluations 61 Hoe, R., & Co. Printing machinery 421 Hobson, Frank M. Woolens 254 Home Woolen Mills. Woolens and worsteds 272-288 Horswell & French. Woolens 265 Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Books 218-220 Houston, John L. Carpets 115,322 Howe & French. Isinglass : 168 Howard Iron Works. Metals. -l - 370 Hubler, A. W. Metals J 374 Hudson River Aniline Color Works. Coal-tar , dyes , and colors 534-538 Hunt, George S. , & Co. Sugar 129 I. Indianapolis Rolling Mill Company. Iron rails — 411 Ingham, William A. Pig-iron 407 Iselin, Neeser & Co. Silks 37 Ivison, Blakeman, Taylor & Co. Steel pens 420 J. Jackson & Kilpatrick. Salt 345 Jansen, P. Wool 498 Jarrett, John. Tin-plate 389 Jennings, A. G., & Son. Silk, laces, &c 60 Jenks, Stephen A. Tariff 436,437 John Russell Cutlery Company. Cutlery - — 425 Johnson, D. J. Cotton goods : 81 Johnson, John. Metals ' - 377 Jonas, B. F. Collector, &c_. 138 Jones, A. H. Tariff 180 Jones, B. F. Metals 365 Jones, Aquilla. Iron rails - 411 Jones, Thomas M. Metals 377 Jones, Rees L. Metals ... r 377 INDEX TO NAMES. 663 Page. K. Keim, de B. Randolph. Pig-iron 403 Kessler, W. Wines and liquors 503 Keystone Mills. Woolens 259 Kirk, James S., & Co. Alkalies 513 Knight, Robert. Tariff 436,437 Knight, Horatio G. Buttons 118 Koch & Dreyfus. Jewelry 139 Koerner, F. Acids 193 L. Lamont, Daniel, to James M. Swank 370 La Montague, E. C. Wines and liquors 503 Landon, Charles G., & Co. Dry goods 45 Lanman & Kemp. Opium , oils, tfc 183 Landers, Tracy & Clark. Cutlery 426 Lasker, M. Irregularities 430 Lauth, Bernard. Pig-iron 370 Laughlin, Samuel. Metals 373 Lawrence, Myers & Co. Wines and liquors 503 Lawrence, Charles W. Wines and liquors 503 Lees, James & Sons. Woolens and yarns 295 Leeson, J. R., & Co. Linen thread 106-110 Lee, Tweedy & Co. Drygoods 16-19 Le Gierse & Co. Undervaluation, &c - 430 Leslie Iron Works. Steel blooms - 520 Linder & Meyer. Chemicals, &c 192 Little Falls Knitting Mills Company. Knit goods 76, 77 Livingstone, Lewis M. Bronze powder 419, 420 Lobdell Car-Wheel Company. Car-wheels, pig-iron, &c 409 Lobdell, George G. Car-wheels, &c 371 Logan Silk Mills. Silks 28 Loeser, Charles McK. Wines and liquors 503 Lord & Hight. Shooks 513 Lowell Manufacturing Company. Carpets , wool, &c 110 Lydon, James. Metals _.374, 376, 377 Lyman, Arthur T. Cotton threads, <&c 94, 112 M. Mahoning Lodge Amalgamated Association Iron Workers 374-376 Mahoning Valley Iron Company. Metals 373 Manuiacturing Chemists’ Association of United States. Drugs and chemicals _ 171 Manufacturing Potters’ Association. Earthenware 149 Manufacturers of Rhode Island. Tariff legislation 434 Manufacturers of wool, approval by, of reply of Wool Manufacturers’ Associ- ation 330, 336 Marcy, Fred. L. Tariff 436, 437 Marchant, H. C. Wool and woolens 253 Marshall, Brother & Co. Tagger’s iron 370 Marshal Field & Co. Dry goods 20 Marshall Iron Company. Sheet iron 371 Marvel, W. D. Tariff , &c 443 Masters, William. Clay pipes 168 Maxwell, George. Woolens .322 Mayer, Strouse & Co. Corsets 72 Me Adam, Graham. Iron and steel 530 McCall, W. W., & J. H. Sheep husbandry 229 McCreery, James & Co. Silks, &c 24-27,291,489 McCullagh, S. Wines and liquors ^ 503 McCullough Iron Co. Metals 370, 390 McDaniel & Harvey Co. Sheet-i ron 371 McDowell, Joseph T. Fruits «. 539,541 McKean, Borie & Co. Sugar 128 McKeesport Iron Works. Sheet-iron 378 McKesson & Robbins. Drugs and chemicals 188 664 INDEX TO NAMES. Page. McHvaine, Wm. & Son. Metals 1 370 McNary, J. R. Wool 1 225 Means, John. Pig-iron , specific duties 407 Meriden Cutlery Company. Cutlery 426 Mermod & J accard J ewelry Company. Jewelry 138 Merriman, Chas. H. Woolens 269 Metcalf, H. B. Tariff 436-437 Metcalf, Wm. Metals 365 Meyer, Bros. & Co. Medicines , wines , &c 441 Michigan Carbon Works. Chemicals * 207,209 Miller Brothers Cutlery Company. Cutlery 422-424 Miller, John H. Iron and steel 530 Miller, Metcalf, & Parkin. Steel 372 Monadnock Mills. Cotton goods 83 Moore, A. L. Woolen goods 260 Morehead, J. B. Metals 365 Morehead, J. B. & Co. Pig-iron 400 Moses, James. Earthenware 155 Moses, John. Earthenware 155 Moss, Daniel. Metals 377 Muser, Richard. Embroideries 64 My rich, Herbert. Tobacco _ 506-508 IV. National Association of Wool Manufacturers. Wool, manufactures of wool.. 299-330, 336, 470 National Tube Works Company. Metals 373 Naylor & Co. Metals 416 New England Monument Company. Marble 122 New York Belting and Packing Company. Linen hose 102 New York Knife Company. Cutlery 426 Nichols, Edward. Pig-iron 407 Nichols, Henry & Co. Wines and liquors 503 Nichols & Farnsworth. Lastings, &c ' 266 Nicholson, W. T. Tariff 436, 437 Noblit, Dell, and Joseph C. & Co. Dry goods 33 Nordlinger, E. & J. Damage allowances 442 Northampton Cutlery Company. Cutlery 426 Nye & Wait. Carpets 497 O. Ogden & Co. Lumber J 344 Ohio Wool Growers’ Association. Wool 226, 230 Osborn, F. P. Wines and liquors 503 Osborne & Cheeseman Company. Nickel 413 Oteri, S. Green fruit 139 Ostheimer Brothers. Tariff 463 P. Paillard, M. J. & Co. Musical boxes 140, 141 Parke, Davis & Co. Menthol 205 Parrot & Co. Burlaps 496 Parsons, Charles H. Fruits 539-541 Passaic Rolling Mill Company. Metals 412 Paulsen, William. Lead 410 Pawling, Levi. Fruits 539-541 Payson, Samuel R. Woolens 322 Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company. Alkalies 184-186 Perseverance Worsted Company. Tariff legislation 254 Phelps, Dodge & Co. Metals 380-382 Phoenix Manufacturing Company. Silks 486-487 Philadelphia Textile Association. Woolens 270 Phipps, Benjamin. Woolens .... 322 Pilling, F. A. Tariff reduction _ „ * J. ^ * 458 INDEX TO NAMES. 665 Page. Pioneer Silk Company. Silks 486-487 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. Glass 155-158 Pollok, Arnold & Co. Cigars 165 Potts, Benjamin C. Woolen goods 267 Pottstown Iron Company. Pig-iron 402 Pow, John Wool 228 Powell, Robert, Hare, Sons & Co. Metals 373 Powers & Weightman. Drugs and chemicals 189 Prime, Frederick. Pig-iron 407 Pulaski, M. H. & Co. Embroideries 63 Pullman, J. Wesley. Pig-iron 407 Purdy, A. B. Wines and liquors 603 R. Raritan Woolen Mills. Woolens 252 Read, William F. Silks, gloves, &c 29, 477-485 Redington, L. W. Sugar 132 Reeves, David. Metals 365 Reeves, G. W. & J. W. Chemicals 182 Reilly, William A. Cloaks, &c 69 Renauld, Charles. Wines and liquors 503 Rhode Island manufacturers. Tariff legislation 434 Richardson, B., & Son. Silks 486-487 Richmond, F. E. Tariff. 436, 437 Richmond, F. H. Tariff 436,437 Riever & Kahn. Glass 143 Roberts, Percival. Metals 365 Robinson, Fred. S., & Co. Fruits 213,541 Robinson, Frederick S. Fruits 539-541 Rockwell, W. F. Cutlery 423 Rogers, Horatio. Tariff ... 436,437 Roebling, John A.’s Sons. Wire rods 371 Root Manufacturing Company. Woolens 330 Rose, Wilton. Fruit 539 Rosengarten & Sons. Quinine, &c 187 Rothchilds Bros. & Co. Buttons 119 Rowland, James & Co. Metals 373 Rushville Shawl Mills. Shawls 293 Russell, John, Cutlery Company. Cutlery 425 Russell Manufacturing Company. Linen hose 102 Russell, William. Scotch caps 77-78 Ryle, John. Silks 3 S. Samuels, D. Silks, laces, &c 47 San Francisco Pioneer Woolen Factory. Woolens 271 Sargent, J . B. , and others. Iron and steel 521 Sauerwiene & Co. Glass 143 Sawyer, Joseph. Woolens.. 322 Sayles, W. F. Tariff 436, 437 Schmid & Peters. Wines and liquors 503 Schoellkopf, J. F. Coal-tar dyes and colors 534 Schoellkopf Aniline and Chemical Company 534-538 Schofield, Mason & Co. Carpets 116 Schriver, Edward, jr. Iron and steel 530 Schuster, J. Plate glass 534 Schuyler, Eugene. Currants 214-216 Schwartzenbach, Robert. Silks 58 Scovil Manufacturing Company. Metals 414 Seal, W. T., Secretary Philadelphia Textile Association. __ 271 Seebass, Oscar. Silks 28 Secretary of the Treasury — To Secretary of State _ . 490, 593 To Department of Agriculture 249 To James M. Swank ___ 366,367 666 INDEX TO NAMES. Page. Secretary of State to Secretary of Treasury 54, 491, 494, 508, 593, 639 Shaw, Alex. D. Wines and liquors ; 503 Shearman, Thomas G. Specific and advalorem duties 431 Sheldon & Co. Metals 373 Sherburne, R. Glass 142 Sherman, Cecil, & Co. Cotton goods . 86, 87 Sibley, Hiram, & Co. Seeds 135 Siegel, F.. & Brothers. Made-up garments 69 Siegfried & Brandenstein. Mattings 116 Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co. Metals 416 Singerly, Wiliam M. Tariff legislation 437 Slade, Frederick J. Metals 365 Sloane, W. & J. Carpets 113 Smith, J. Richard. Buttons 119 Smith Township Wool-Growers’ Association. Wool . 223 South worth Company. Paper 220-222 South Mountain Mining and Iron Company. Metals 370 Spencer, Chas., & Co. Wool and woolens 253 Spring Valley Woolen Mills. Woolens 252 Standard Hosiery Mills. Hosiery 296 Stearns, John N., & Co. Silks 486-487 Stevenson, J. M. Wool _ 225 Stevens, Timothy. Wines and liquors 503 Strange & Brother. Silks 8 Strange, William, & Co. Silks ___ 486,487 Streuli, H. E. Silks 59 Sullivan & Brother. Hosiery , &c 66 Sullivan, Michael. Metals 376, 377 Sutter Bros. Tobacco 166 Swank, James M. Metals 365, 367, 368, 369 T. Taft, Edward P. Tariff — 436, 437 Taft, Royal C. Tariff 436, 437 Thorne, Peter J. Fruit 539-541 Thurber, Whyland & Co. Canned goods 210-212 Tichenor, George C. Wool 232-249 Tiemann, Daniel F., & Co. Paints and colors 193 Tingle, A. K. Wool 232-249 Tomlin, F. S. Glass bottles 145 Todd, S. H. Wool 228 Townsend, E. Y. Metals 365 Treloar, Joseph. Wearing apparel 442 Tribbey, J. H. Tariff 461 Trick, Wilkins. Tinplates 383 U. United American Clay Tobacco Pipe Manufacturers’ Association.. — 166 Upson & Hart Company. Cutlery 426 V. Valentine & Co. Varnishes 182 Vassalboro, Wollen Mills. Woolens 265 Vermont Marble Company. Marble 123-127 Vick, James. Seeds, &c 136 Vinton, Lindley. Iron and steel 530 Vogeley, A. Glass 143 W. Wahl Bros. Glue - 122 Wallace, W. H. Metals 373 Walrath, R 76,77 Walter, Richard. Silks 486-487 Walton & Leland. Woolens 253 INDEX TO NAMES. 667 Page. Ward, Hill & McClellan. Stationery, <&c 217 Warner Bros. Corsets 73 Weatherby, Stevens & Co. Dry goods 16 Wernwag & Dawson. Silks 40-44 West Point Foundry Association. Tariff 463 Westervelt, W. H. Fruits 539-541 Wharton, Joseph. Metals 365, 413 Wheeler, Andrew. Metals 365 Wheeling Nail Manufacturer 374 Whitaker, N. E. Metals 373 White, L. S. Chemicals 179 White, J. R. Metals r 377 Whiting, John L., &Son. Brushes , &c 204 Whitman, William. Wool manufactures 322, 330, 470 Whitney, A. R., & Co. Hoop-iron 372 Wilkin, J. M. & S. W. Wool 230 Willets, Joseph. Earthenware 155 Wills, Henry T. Fruits 539-541 Williams, John D. & M. Wines and spirits 163 Williams, Thomas. Metals 376, 377 Wine and Spirit Traders’ Society of the United States. Wines and liquors __ 500-506 Witherbee, Frank S. Pig iron and ore 393, 407 Wolff & Rheinhold. Glass bottles, &c ... 146,147 Wood, William W. Steel blooms 370 Wool manufacturers. Circular letters from 330,336 Wright Bros. & Co. Silks and umbrellas 13 Wright, Peter, & Sons. Earthenware, &c 121, 457 X. Zahn, Jacob. Glass 143 INDEX TO SUBJECTS, A. Page. Administrative reforms suggested 16, 17, 20, 23, 37, 45, 47, 57, 60, 63, 68, 69, 102, 105, 120, 121, 128, 134, 145, 148, 157, 158, 182, 183, 184, 188, 231, 321, 336, 344, 365, 381, 416, 430, 434, 436, 446, 458, 465, 486, 496, 501, 502, 506, 507, 517 Administration customs. (See 1 1 Customs administration. ’ ’ ) Adulterated goods 6, 11, 24, 28, 29, 30, 48, 54, 134, 383, 441, 477, 500, 537 Advalorem duties preferred 14, 16, 33, 36, 39, 63, 68, 84, 86, 94, 113, 114, 117, 119, 121, 122, 136, 138, 147, 162, 182, 193, 204, 218, 220, 274, 410, 416, 421, 425, 428, 431,437, 449, 516 Advalorem equivalents of specific duties under existing United States tariff, based on importations in 1884 550-592 Advalorem equivalents of specific duties under French tariff 593-638 Advalorem equivalents of specific duties under German tariff 639-648 Ambiguities, tariff. (See “ Tariff ambiguities and incongruities.”) American industry, promotion of 544 Anti-moiety act 295, 321, 337, 436 uiloCillCll L, lllv lilUvlij U1 — — - — — — — — — lUj /wvj kjkj ^ “Uj TO. t/Uj rJOj Utlj < Oj lvU^ XUUj lOl/^ 1 OO j 201, 272, 417, 442, 446, 465, 480-481, 517 Appraisers, merchant. (See “Merchant appraisers.”) Appropriations 456, 544-548 Average rates of duty under French tariff 629 B Bonds, custom-house Bribery of customs officials 184,501 16, 27, 66, 104, 430, 473 Capital invested in plant, &c 2, 60, 73, 88, 90, 97, 106, 109, 112, 149, 155, 169, 173, 207, 221, 261, 264, 267, 268, 275, 277, 293, 294, 298, 304, 360, 372, 397, 400, 405, 407, 413, 415, 435, 498, 517, 629, 535, 537 Charges, packing &c 118, 121, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 154, 213, 230, 243, 310 Charitable donations 442 Chemical production of United States 173 Circular of N ational Association W ool Manufacturers 330 Circular replies to same 330-336 Classification of imports 7, 12, 20, 34, 37, 52, 78, 107, 119, 125, 137, 177, 201, 217, 242, 447, 457, 516, 550-592 Compound duties recommended 3, 7, 13, 22, 23, 45, 87, 113, 115, 116, 252, 253, 254, 255, 265, 269, 270, 294, 295, 296, 310, 330-336, 441 Consignments on foreign account 5, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23. 24, 29, 30, 33, 35, 46, 54, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 72, 75, 100, 110, 136, 186, 208, 209, 217, 255, 258, 265, 269, 419, 423, 434, 457, 464, 479, 535 Consular experts 54-58 Consular invoices and certificate-23, 27, 69, 105, 123, 148, 163, 184, 381, 417, 446, 502, 517 Corruption, official-1, 16, 27, 47, 48, 66, 104, 105, 128, 134, 157, 180, 231, 416, 430, 449, 473 Cost of production: Aniline dyes and colors _ 535-537 Burlaps 97 Bronze powder 418 Carriages 518 Clay pipes 167 Coal-tar dyes and colors 535-537 Cotton thread and yarns 88-89 Cotton cloth 82 Corsets 74 669 670 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. Cost of prodnction--Contmued. Cutlery Earthenware Flax Flax hose Iron and steel Iron ore Isinglass Linen thread Paper Piano-felt Pig-iron Plate-glass Rice Scotch caps Silk manufacture. Shawls Tin-plates Tooth-brushes Twine Wool Woolen goods Worsted goods Pago. — 423, 424, 425, 426 149 105 101 356-360, 368, 372, 375, 499, 523-526 397, 526 169 109 220-222 263,264 .401,403, 405, 408, 455, 523-526, 531 155, 159, 160 — 512 78 1,3,38,41 293 384, 388 202,203 106 226-230 31, 275, 298, 309, 323, 325 31, 298 Customs-administration 1, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 20, 23, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 46, 47, 51, 54, 56, 60, 61, 63, 68, 76, 78, 96, 104, 105, 106, 110, 117, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 128, 132, 134, 136, 137, 145, 157, 158, 162, 172, 179, 182, 183, 188, 226, 231, 242, 268, 294, 297, 311, 321, 336, 349, 380, 416, 417, 422, 428, 430, 433, 434, 437, 445, 448, 458, 463, 473, 486, 487 Customs court 179, 338, 340 Custom-house bonds 184, 501 D. Damage allowances 61, 118, 146, 157, 158, 163, 212, 442 Department decisions 137, 183, 217, 231, 242, 447 Direct taxation 443 Domestic industry, promotion of 544 Drawbacks 14, 134, 158 Duties, advalorem. {See “Advalorem duties.”) Compound. {See “Compound duties.”) Specific. {See “Specific duties.”) Advalorem equivalents of specific under French tariff 593-638 Advalorem equivalents of specific under tariff of German Empire 639-648 Average rates under French tariff ^ 629 Based on cost of labor 435, 465, 466 Collected on goods entered for consumption during fiscal year 1884 550-592 {See “Evasion of duties.”) Changes in rates recommended .7, 20, 21,22, 23, 30,36, 45, 67, 73,75, 77, 96, 98,102,108, 117, 122, 125, 130, 131, 140, 143, 144, 147, 164, 165, 166, 168, 170, 177, 178, 184, 200, 208, 209, 210, 216, 220, 266, 271, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 322, 350, 354, 370, 371, 372, 374, 377, 382, 385, 389-391, 402, 406, 408, 409, 412, 413, 418, 420, 423, 429, 450, 458, 477, 484, 488, 495, 502, 520, 534, 537, 539-542 {See “Reduction of duties.”) Dutiable merchandise, quantities, values, &c., of, entered for consumption in United States during fiscal year 1884 550-592 Entries, liquidation of 23,446 Evasion ofduties 1 , 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 35, 39,45,46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76, 78, 95, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 110, 113, 116, 118, 121, 123. 124, 125, 128, 132, 134, 135, 136, 141, 142, 147,-149, 154, 157, 158, 161. 163, 164, 166, 168, 170, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 197, 199, 201, 203, 205, 208, 209, 212; 213, 216, 218, 223, 226, 230, 231, 236, 239, 242, 243, 244, 255, 257, 258, 265, 267, 268, 270, 272, 277, 296. 297, 3,10, 321,337, 339, 349,351, 370,372, 378, 389, 390, 391, 394,406, 408, 409, 413, 416, 417, 118, 420, 421, 423, 425, 426, 428, 430, 433, 434, 440, 442, 445, 452. 457, 464, 473, 478, 480, 485, 491, 496, 499, 500, 506, 509, 510, 516, 535 Experts, consular. {See “Consular experts.”) INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 671 Page. F. Failure of manufacturers to furnish information in reply to Department cir- cular 348,522 Federal taxation, reduction of ^ 544-549 Fees, custom-house 23, 185, 381, 502 Foreign trade 15, 70, 81, 118, 181. 185, 186, 221, 259, 268, 288, 347, 364, 402, 421, 427, 440, 451, 462, 472, 474, 475, 476, 513, 514, 519, 529, 533 Foreign manufacturers, advantages of __31, 171, 191, 196, 200, 243, 257, 258, 260, 261, 267, 273, 274, 277, 304, 305, 419, 513, 519, 526, 536 France: General tariff of 593-638 Average rates of duty under tariff of 629 French, general tariff, index of 630-638 Freelist, enlargement off. 84, 112, 136, 142, 192, 193, 197, 207, 209, 213, 215, 223, 259, 268, 345, 422, 443, 459, 461, 462, 469, 470, 513, 516, 528, 537, 538, 539-542, 549-592 Free raw materials. (See “Eaw materials, free.”) Free ships _ — - .427, 476, 520 Freights. (See ‘ ‘ Transportation. ’ ’ ) G. German tariff, ad valorem equivalents of specific duties under 639-648 Goods, wares, and merchandise, dutiable, entered for consumption in United States during fiscal year 1884 550-592 H. Home valuations 5, 84, 256, 257, 269, 272, 288, 290, 372 Home trade. (See 1 1 Trade, home. ’ ’ ) I. Immigration, pauper 221 Importations, dutiable, entered for consumption in the United States during fiscal year 1884 550-592 Imports. (See “Classification of imports.”) Incongruities and ambiguities of tariff. (See ‘ ‘ Tariff incongruities and ambi- guities.”) Index of French tariff 630-638 Industry, domestic, promotion of 544 Inequalities and discriminations of the tariff. (See “ Tariff inequalities and discriminations. ’ ’ ) Information, refusal of manufacturers to furnish 348, 373, 374, 412, 522 Information, efforts to secure 348, 367-369, 390 Interest 78, 90, 97, 109, 153, 170, 264, 275, 304, 360, 405, 421, 435, 517, 536 Internal revenue 83, 164, 177, 185, 189, 364, 501, 502, 545, 546 L. Labor 2, 3, 32, 38, 41, 70, 74, 76, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 97, 104, 106, 109, 112, 122, 124, 144, 149, 155, 157, 159, 160, 167, 169, 176, 181, 185, 200, 201, 203, 221, 228, 229, 262, 263, 264, 267, 272, 278, 298, 356-359, 377, 380, 383, 386, 392, 393, 395, 397, 398, 400, 402, 405, 407, 409, 418, 421, 423, 425, 427, 435, 439, 453, 454, 455, 472, 474, 512, 515, 517, 518, 519, 524, 529, 534, 535 Limitations, statute of _ 449 Liquidation of entries 23, 446 M, Machinery used in manufactures 3, 88, 102, 109, 111, 156, 169, 261, 267, 268, 275 277 298 535 Manufacturers’ profit 41, 85, 90, 95, 112, 159, 160, 221, 261, 276, 293, 298, 422,’ 521, 526, 536 Manufacturers, refusal of, to furnish information 169, 348, 373, 374, 522 Manufacturers of wool, approving reply of National Wool Manufacturers’ Association .... 330-336 672 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. Page. Manufacturers of wool, disapproval of above reply 470-476, 486 Manufacturers, foreign. ( See 1 ‘ Foreign manufacturers, advantages of. ” ) Market value 5, 28, 32, 33, 40, 52, 56, 63, 66, 68, 76, 100, 102, 137, 171, 188, 205, 210, 258, 265, 380, 446, 464, 480, 496, 499 Merchandise, dutiable, quantities, values, &c. , of, imported during fiscal year 1884 550-592 Merchant appraisers . 48, 63, 465, 480 Moiety law. (See “ Anti-moiety act.”) N. Naval officer, abolishment of office. 458 Navigation laws ... 268,515 O. Oaths and fees 23, 52, 54, 143, 163, 184, 381, 501 Official corruption. (See “Corruption, official.”) P. Pauper immigration 221 Penalties 17, 20, 23, 34, 40, 45, 61, 121, 188, 257, 321, 338, 340, 386, 416, 445, 457 Production, cost of. (See “Cost of production.”) Profit, manufacturers’. (See “Manufacturers’ profit.”) Promotion of American industry 544 Protection, results of 57, 70, 81, 83, 90, 100, 112, 142, 153, 154, 158, 159, 171, 176, 184, 221, 254, 258, 259, 261, 262, 274, 278, 346, 360, 362, 379, 399, 427, 428, 438, 450-452, 462, 471-474, 486, 498, 512, 519, 522, 527-29. Protests against tariff changes 115, 116, 293, 294-296, 303, 330-336 Protests and appeals 119, 120 R. Rates and amounts of duty collected on imports entered for consumption in the United States during fiscal year 1884 550-592 Raw materials free 15, 22, 30, 45, 71, 76, 81, 82, 97, 102, 108, 109, 111, 112, 117, 161, 181, 183, 193, 194 ,198, 205, 258, 259, 261, 262, 268, 269, 272, 274, 288, 294, 298, 304, 396, 427, 437, 449, 457, 458, 472, 486, 489, 497, 513, 516, 528, 532, 535, 537, 538 Reappraisements 11, 56, 61, 188, 465, 481 Reduction of duties suggested 16, 20, 22, 32, 36, 38, 41, 51, 56, 57, 72, 82, 84, 85, 86, 112, 114, 117, 119, 120, 129, 134-136, 139, 140-142, 146, 147, 162, 163, 177, 183, 188, 192, 193, 196, 198, 206, 209, 210, 213, 214, 216, 223, 256, 259, 265, 268, 269, 277, 278, 344, 345, 381, 382, 390, 410, 411, 413, 417, 420, 422, 427, 431, 433, 446, 449, 457, 459-461, 462-459, 469-470, 473, 474, 486, 489, 492, 497, 502, 512, 513, 516, 521-529, 531, 539-542, 544-592 Reduction of duties opposed 83, 88, 90, 91, 92, 110, 124, 154, 156, 159, 178, 185, 189, 205, 254, 293, 294. 295, 296, 300, 301, 362, 363, 378, 392, 393, 399, 401, 402, 407, 409, 422, 426, 428, 436, 439, 497, 498, 537 Reduction of Federal taxation 544-549 Revenue, surplus, disposition of 364, 421, 544-549 Revision of tariff. (See “ Tariff revision.”) Samples of merchandise 3, 23, 50, 76, 79, 86, 87, 89, 97, 222, 252, 420 Schedules, tariff. (See “ Tariff scehedules proposed.”) Sheep husbandry 76, 224, 230, 232, 244, 249-251, 269, 276, 294, 306, 471, 498 Ships, free 427, 476, 520 Similitude clause (Sec. 2499 R. S.) - 179 Special agents, Treasury Department 40, 52, 55, 175, 449 Specific duties favored 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 40, 46, 47, 49, 51, 60, 63, 64, 66, 72, 73, 76, 83, 92, 95, 99, 100, 102, 106, 110, 116, 118, 121, 122, 123, 127, 129, 132, 135. 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146, 156, 158, 163, 165, 166, 168, 170, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 192, 197, 199, 200, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 216, 217, 218, 222, 223, 226, 254, 255, 266, 271, 291, 297, 344, 348, 370, 371, 372, 375, 377, 378, 380, 383, 386, 389, 390, 392, 400, 402, 406, 407, 409, 411, 413, 410, 418, 420, 423, 429, 430, 434, 440, 441, 442, 458, 463, 478-485, 487, 489,491-496, 500, 535, 537, 539, 54Q INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 673 Page. Specific duties and ad valorem equivalents under French tariff 593-638 Specific duties and ad valorem equivalents under German tariff 639-648 Statute of limitations 449 Subsidies American ships 421 Surplus revenue, disposition of 364, 421, 544-592 Surveyor of customs, abolishment of office of 458 T. Tariff acts, when should take effect 288, 463 Tariff agitation deprecated 15, 82, 154, 185, 204, 226, 231, 253, 254, 271, 293, 295, 300, 301, 302, 363, 365, 399, 407, 428, 436, 438, 463, 498 Tariff ambiguities and incongruities 20, 24, 107, 120, 124, 128, 135, 137, 147, 148, 164, 183, 184, 197, 198, 212, 213, 216, 217, 242, 294, * 314, 411 ,.417, 418, 427, 447, 488, 510, 516, 543 Tariff commissions proposed 51, 53, 114, 464 Tariff, French 593-638 Tariff, German 639-648 Tariff inequalities and discriminations 7, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 31, 36, 46, 48, 51, 62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81, 84, 85, 86, 91, 102, 105, 106, 114, 118, 120, 128, 129, 133, 135, 137, 143, 144, 145, 156, 165, 178, 184, 185, 189, 191, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 204, 207, 210, 217, 222, 226, 242, 243, 257, 259, 260, 262, 267, 268, 269, 273- 275, 294, 309, 310, 315, 316, 319. 346, 351, 374, 376, 378, 380, 386, 390, 391, 41)6, 410, 411, 417, 418, 420, 432, 437, 443, 447, 457, 473, 511, 513, 516, 517, 520, 534, 541-543 Tariff revision favored 1, 3-8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29, 33, 37, 40, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75-78, 81, 84, 86, 96, 100, 104, 106, 110, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122-124, 127, 129, 132, 135-137, 140-147, 161-167, 170, 177, 182-184, 186, 188, 190, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200, 204, 206, 208-210, 212, 213, 216, 217, 222, 224, 226, 254, 259, 260, 263, 265, 266, 268, 269, 271, 272-278, 291,298, 341, 345, 370, 371, 374, 376, 377, 378, 380, 383, 386, 389, 391, 402, 410, 411, 419, 420, 427, 433, 437, 442, 446, 457, 459, 462, 474, 478, 486, 489, 496, 502, 507, 511, 513, 514, 516, 526-533, 535, 539-542, 544-592 Tariff revision opposed 15, 16, 79, 83, 88, 91, 92, 115, 116, 154, 156, 159, 185, 204, 213, 226, 231, 252, 253, 254, 255, 270,293-297, 299-302, 330-336, 362-365, 370, 373, 378, 399, 412, 428, 436, 437, 439, 463, 468, 497, 498 Tariffs on wool and woolens, history of 232-244, 313 Tariff schedules proposed: Ale and beer Bags and bagging _ _ Burlaps Bottles Books Carpets Chemicals Clothing Coal tar, dyes, and colors Corsets Cotton goods Cutlery Dried fruits Dry goods Dye-stuffs Embroideries Fire-arms Flax, jute, hemp, &c Glass, beveled plate Gloves Green fruits Hosiery. Knit underwear Laces 502 497 96,98,497 147 220 21, 23, 292, 323 ---192, 198-199, 208 20,45,322 537 75 20,22, 45, 495 424 210, 539 23 255 25,65,495 429 489 534 21,23, 26, 45, 67, 484 539-540 20, 26, 67, 77 20, 26, 77, 292 25, 495 Lastings and serges 266 Linens 21,22,489 Liquors, &c 502 674 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. Page. Tariff schedules proposed — Continued. Marble • 125 Matting 117 Metals _vl - 381-382 Musical boxes 140 Nuts 539-540 Piano felt 263 Pig-iron 406 Preserved fruits 539 Provisions + 216 Plushes 25, 36 Eice - 511 Sheet-iron 391 Silks 9, 13, 21, 23, 24, 25, 37, 40, 42, 45, 53, 58, 477, 486, 487, 488 Sugar * 130,131 Sundries • 21 Thread . 67, 108, 490 Tin-plate _385, 389, 390, 392 Tobacco 509 Toilet articles 21 Tooth-brushes 202 Upholstery goods 36 Velvets 23,25 Wines and liquors 502 Wool 22 45 225 290 291 Wool, manufactures of 20, 21, 22, 45, 271,' 288, 289, 29o’, 291, 292’ 322 Yarns „ 20, 67, 108, 290-291, 490 Various articles : 550-592 Tariff system, simplification of 544-592 Taxation: Direct . 443 P’ederal 544-549 Local 111, 221, 298, 416 Taxes, internal revenue. ( See “Internal revenue.”) Trade, home 70, 181, 185, 190, 228, 304, 400, 439, 474, 518 Trade, foreign. ( See “Foreign trade.”) Transportation : 153, 156, 221, 267, 268, 345, 355, 358, 359, 362, 397, 402, 406, 415, 421, 437, 458, 476, 502, 519, 523, 525 Treaties 132, 213, 456, 475, 520 U. U ndervaluation : References to 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-16, 17, 20-24, 27, 29, 33, 34, 39, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 60, 61, 66, 69, 77, 78, 95, 100, 102, 110, 116, 118, 123, 124, 135, 138, 139, 140, 149, 164, 166-168, 182, 183, 203, 205, 209, 216, 218, 223, 226, 231, 242, 244, 255, 257, 258, 265, 269, 270-272, 277, 296, 310, 321, 337, 339, 349, 370-372, 378, 389, 390, 394, 406, 408, 409, 413, 416, 420, 421, 423, 425. 428-430, 433, 434. 440, 441, 442, 445, 453/457, 464, 473, 478, 480, 487, 491-516', 535. Benefits of_^ 433 Remedies for •_ 17, 60, 188, 337, 433, 436, 446 V. Valuations, fixed 62, 433, 445 Valuations at port of entry 5, 54, 256, 257, 269, 272, 288, 290, 372 Values, dutiable 5, 32, 40, 46, 47, 62, 66, 75, 102, 171, 186, 188, 265, 380, 457, 464, 499 (See also “ Market value.”) Value, description and quantities of dutiable imports entered for consump- tion in United States during fiscal year 1884 550-592 Wages 2, 3, 38, 88-90, 97, 109, 111, 112, 144, 149, 155, 157, 159, 160, 167-169, 176, 181, 183, 185, 201-203, 208, 220, 221, 229, 230, 2tf3, 264, 267. 272, 278, 297, 298, 310, 358, 359, 375, 379, 388, 393, 395, 405, 406, 408, 415, 418, 422, 423, 425, 427, 454, 474, 498, 517, 518, 519, 521, 524-529, 535 C See also “Labor.”) INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 675 w. Page. Warehouse system 179, 186, 501, 503-506 Wool : Cost of production of 227, 230 Domestic, prices of . 224, 227, 232, 249, 251 Domestic, production of 224, 231, 232, 235, 237, 238, 241, 250, 294 Exports of -_-l : 233 Foreign cost of. 30, 246-248, 273, 279-287, 325-328, 499 Imports of 233, 239, 241, 245, 251 Tariff acts relating to 232-244 Wool manufacturers : Approval of reply of National Wool Manufacturers’ Association to circu- lar of Secretary of the Treasury 330-336, 497 Disapproval of above reply 470-476, 486