rate. This will be a serious blow to all the manufacturers making clear Havana cigars and will ruin Key West, unless the duty on cigars is very much increased. It will add from $8 to $10 to the cost of material per 1,000 for all clear Havana cigars, and from $5 to $7 per 1,000 to those filled with Cuban leaf.

I can not believe that you gentlemen will deliberately enact a law which, if honestly enforced, will ruin Key West and a number of Northern manufacturers; nor can I believe that you will deliberately enact a law which you do not wish to see enforced to the letter and impartially to all. Sumatra or Havana wrapper is now used almost exclusively in all cigars costing at wholesale $30 and over per 1,000, and largely in those costing from $20 to $30 per 1,000; you will not prevent the importation of a pound of Sumatra leaf by making all wrapper leaf subject to the 75-cent rate. It takes but 3 pounds of Sumatra wrappers to cover 1,000 cigars. The average duty paid this year is in excess of 45 cents per pound; 30 cents per pound additional duty would make the wrapper cost only 90 cents more per 1,000, unless the Dutch Syndicate shall deem it politic to take less than the customary 75 per cent. on their stock capital invested in the tobacco interests in Sumatra, and by reducing the price, as they can well afford to, meet the increase in duty.

Outside appearance is of the utmost importance in the sale of cigars, and a Sumatra wrapper will cover deficiencies in the quality of the filler. Sumatra has become an absolute necessity for the manufacturer, and even if the jobber, retailer, or smoker shall have to pay $1 more on 1,000 cigars to get what he wants, he will cheerfully pay that dollar before he will accept the coarser American wrapper. The present crop of Sumatra is short in quantity; prices are from 30 to 40 cents higher per pound than last year; still manufacturers buy and consume Sumatra leaf more freely than they did in former years. Only such American leaf as will in a measure approach in appearance the product of Sumatra can be sold for wrapper purposes, and four-fifths of the product of Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, and nineteen-twentieths of the product of Ohio is used for fillers. The heavier tobaccos of these States bring a high price for filler purposes; higher, indeed, than they brought for wrapper purposes twenty-three years ago, except in Connecticut tobacco.

The farmers of Wisconsin receive quite as much for their product today as they did before Sumatra was known; the same may be said of Pennsylvania and of New York and of Ohio. Connecticut and Massachusetts have suffered, not so much from the competition of Sumatra, as from the fact that the land will no longer produce the fine quality and texture of leaf which it formerly yielded. Still there is a growing demand in the country for American wrapper leaf, and the quantity of cigars covered with American wrappers last year was fully double that of those wrapped with Sumatra; this is largely due to the fact that in some of the States exceptionally fine crops were raised.

But to get back to the provisions of this bill: I assert without fear of contradiction that this proposed law, if honestly enforced, will or ought to make all leaf tobacco subject to a duty of 75 cents per pound. I am sure that a bill imposing that rate clearly so there can be no question will be more acceptable to all concerned than this bill. You had better make all leaf tobacco subject to 75 cents per pound duty than to leave the matter in the form in which you have it now, then raise your duty on cigars accordingly, and we will try to get along; but do not leave two rates of duty so widely apart on two classes of merchandise, the dividing line of which can not be agreed upon by any three experts

you may choose. But there is no need of this very high rate to fully protect the American farmer. A duty of 50 cents per pound for unstemmed, and 55 cents for stemmed tobacco per pound is more than five times what it costs the American farmer to raise a pound of leaf tobacco, and I would recommend that the duty be fixed at that rate. The result will be that the farmer will get a still higher price for his product for filler purposes, and that is about all that the great bulk of the American cigar leaf tobacco is considered fit for in the markets of the world to-day.

The cost of Cuban leaf has steadily increased; it is full 50 per cent. higher than it was twenty years ago. The quantity of Havana leaf has in no way kept pace with the increase in the manufacture of cigars. All this has resulted in giving the American grower a fair return for his product; the manufacturers have been driven to use mostly domestic leaf for filler purposes; an additional duty of 15 cents per pound will further reduce the proportion of Cuban leaf used for filler purposes and will increase the consumption of American leaf; but the duty on cigars should be fixed at not less than $5 per pound to offset this taking off of the ad valorem duty and the increase in the duty on leaf from 35 cents to 50 cents.

In closing I desire to make one other recommendation which will do much to help the American manufacturers. Section 2804 of the Revised Statutes, requiring a peculiar stamp to be attached to all boxes containing imported cigars, should be repealed and the product of the American manufacturer should be allowed to stand side by side with that of the foreign manufacturer without any discriminating mark being put upon the product of the foreign manufacturer by the Govern

ment.

BOOKS.

COMMUNICATION FROM FRANK BATTLES,

Principal of Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind.

PHILADELPHIA, January 3, 1889.

DEAR SIR: If it meets your approval will you kindly use your influence to have incorporated in the Senate tariff bill a section admitting free of duty books printed in raised characters and appliances for the use of the blind.

These manufactures, both in this country and abroad, are of a charitable character and are sold at cost. While under the law those intended for the use of institutions for the blind are now admitted free, there are a large number of individual blind (probably sixty thousand in the United States) who would be benefited by such a concession. As you may know, the blind now have the recognition of the National Government in the subsidy fund of $250,000 set apart for printing for them embossed books.

I have written to Senators Cameron and Quay in the same tenor. Very respectfully, yours,

Hon. WILLIAM B. ALLISON.

FRANK BATTLES,
Principal.

STRUCTURAL IRON.

STATEMENT OF REED, STICKNEY & CO.

BALTIMORE, January 3, 1889. DEAR SIR: We notice by this morning's newspaper account that your committee proposes to open the question again of the tariff on structural iron and to still further reduce the rate fixed in the Senate bill and to make the tariff on iron beams, as we understand it, eighttenths or nine-tenths of 1 cent per pound, instead of 1.15 cents per pound, as you now have it. So far as we can judge, this would be an unwise reduction. Just before the recent election we received the inclosed circular from Charleroi, Belgium, by which you will see that Mr. Andris Jochams offers to furnish iron beams and girders at prices under American makers, and this with the present duty of 14 cents per pound or $28 per ton. What will be the result of this competition if you reduce the tariff to under 1 cent per pound? We thought this circular might be of service to you, and therefore inclose it.

Yours, very respectfully,

Hon. WILLIAM B. ALLISON,

REED, STICKNEY & Co.

United States Senator, Washington, D. C.

ARCHITECTURAL IRON.-IRON BEAMS.

CHARLEROI, le, 16th October, 1888.

DEAR SIRS: Our works can execute any order for best beams, quality equal to best American product, at much lower prices than prices ruling now in the States for same. We quote on application, cost, freight, insurance, and duty paid, to any port of your country, and any city free there.

We have all the American sections, and we can give you the best references on your side.

Rolling 120,000 tons annually, we can serve promptly.

We roll special beams for bridge builders.

Would you send us your specifications, we will quote at once and state time of delivery.

According to your requirements, we can deliver rough beams or beams quite fitted as per drawings. We make aiso riveted girders at prices under any competition. Waiting your kind communications on the subject, I remain, dear sirs, your obedient servant,

ANDRIS JOCHAMS.

BARYTA.

STATEMENT OF W. M. KINSEY.

SAINT LOUIS, Mo., December 31, 1888.

MY DEAR SIR: Among our important mineral resources is sulphate of baryta or barytes, which is found in greater abundance within a radius of 75 miles southwest of Saint Louis than anywhere else in the United States.

A great number of the farms in some of our southeastern counties contain scattered deposits of barytes, which is quite easily mined and

will afford to our farmers and miners a valuable source of revenue if a moderate duty is placed upon both the manufactured and unmanufactured product.

The American manufactured product at this time amounts to about 25,000 tons per annum, of which Missouri furnishes 12,000 tons, Virginia 8,000 to 10,000 tons, and other parts of the country 4,000 to 5,000 tons.

About 10,000 tons are imported annually from the Hartz Mountains of Germany.

The unmanufactured foreign product is usually shipped across the Atlantic as ballast and is thus laid down in our eastern ports at a price so low that after being prepared for market by Eastern manufacturers it can be sold in Saint Louis as low or lower than the Missouri manufactured product.

Barytes is used chiefly in the manufacture of paints, a certain percentage being regarded as a valuable addition to white lead, but beyond that degree it becomes an adulteration. It is also used in the covering for canvassed hams, etc.

Formerly sulphate of baryta (unmanufactured) was dutiable, but after the failure of certain Eastern deposits manufacturers there secured a new classification of the foreign product, which practically operated to admit it free of duty.

This was done against the strenuous opposition of Western manufacturers and producers, and, as they claim, in evasion of the revenue laws. Under the present tariff schedule and the rulings of the Treasury Department the production of barytes in this country is becoming an unprofitable business, and the lower duty on the manufactured product fixed by both the Mills bill and Senate substitute, as well as the unmanufactured being placed on the free list in both, threaten its destruction. In my judgment the manufactured product should be made dutiable at $10 per ton and the unmanufactured at $2 to $4 per ton.

It would help us very much in Missouri to have a duty of $2 per ton on the unmanufactured product, if nothing better can be had.

To take barytes from the free list and make it dutiable is certainly in accord with the protection principle and will be of great benefit to the people of Missouri and Virginia particularly.

With a moderate duty on both the manufactured and unmanufactured product we can easily supply our home market, but with the duty taken off of either Germany will be able to fix the price in this country.

Comparatively this article is unimportant, still, in a revision of the tariff, it is worthy of attention, and I hope will receive favorable consideration at the hands of your committee.

If I were now in Congress I should feel it to be my duty to have, if possible, barytes taken from the free list and made dutiable.

Hoping to see this change made before your substitute goes to the House,

I remain, sincerely yours,

Hon. WILLIAM B. ALLISON,

Washington, D. C.

W. M. KINSEY.

GLASS BOTTLÉS.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. PENNYPACKER.

GLASSBOROUGH, N. J., January 2, 1889. DEAR SIR: In my letter to Senator Sherman last fall I referred to the fact that I did not think that the Senate tariff bill gave us enough protection. The facts are just these: Under the present tariff green glass bottles and vials are taxed 1 cent per pound; all filled bottles and vials are entered at ad valorem. Now, shippers will fill their wares with colored water and invoice them as filled, thereby escaping the specific duty of 1 cent per pound.

Now, a 1-pound foreign-made bottle can be sold in New York for $3.90 per gross, while the cost of production to the American manufacturer for the same bottle is $4.29 per gross, and, as all glass manufacturers pay the freight and cost of transportation to destination, and this is not included in the figures that I have given, nor the clerical force required in the shipment and handling, it is very evident that the American manufacturer can not compete with the foreign article under existing circumstances. Now then, what shall be the remedy? Shall the foreign manufacturer be compelled to pay such a duty as will enable the American manufacturer to compete with him, or shall our wages be reduced to enable such a result to be attained? I prefer the former. It is true that the Senate bill raises the duty on all green glass bottles a half cent per pound of less than a pint capacity. This covers all the smaller grades and leaves the larger ones as at present.

Now, we hear so much about the tariff making the cost greater to the consumer; pint lager beer bottles weigh 1 pound; the duty is 1 cent. I do not think the bottler would fall 1 cent per bottle in the price of his beer if the duty were removed. We hope that our industry may receive the protection it requires.

Yours truly,

Hon. WILLIAM B. ALLISON,

Chairman Subcommittee.

JOSEPH J. PENNYPACKER.

TOBACCO.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WOODSIDE.

PHILADELPHIA, January 4, 1889.

MY DEAR SIR: I am informed that the revenue bill now before your committee provides that a single leaf in a bale of tobacco, suited for fillers, provided that leaf would make a cigar-wrapper, will subject the entire bale or invoice to the duty of 75 cents per pound, or if stemmed to $1 per pound.

This will certainly prohibit the importation of a certain class of Havana tobacco, used exclusively for fillers, as this class of Havana tobacco has an occasional leaf from which a cigar-wrapper might be made.