SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT RELATIVE TO SACRED VESSELS SUBMITTED BY THE WRIGHT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA, PA., December 7, 1908. HONORABLE GENTLEMEN: We sent our Representative, Hon. J. Hampton Moore, a communication with relation to the "free import clause" under the existing tariff. At his request we submit you a few brief statements bearing on this subject. In the present tariff laws there is a clause which allows churches, colleges, schools, etc. (Catholic institutions principally), to import articles used in their devotion, such as candelabra, candlesticks, lamps, chalices, ostensoriums, ciboriums, etc., "free of duty" by simply signing an affidavit. (We attach hereto a form that is used for this purpose.) This clause has been in existence about ten years and has proven to be a very serious question in our particular industry. We can safely say that to-day 50 per cent of the metal goods required about churches (principally Catholic) are brought in "free" under this clause. Our industry suffers to this extent. This clause has been the means of foreign manufacturers establishing agencies throughout this country. Every important dealer in this line of goods now holds a foreign agency, and the imported work is placed in direct competition with domestic. The fact that foreign articles can be sold "free of duty" gives them the preference at once, since they can be offered "45 per cent" less than the domestic article. In other words, the purchaser can see more value for his money in buying the foreign article. We are one of probably six concerns in this country who devote their entire attention to this particular line of work, and there are many less important concerns who simply work a department given to this line. The industry may be termed "art work." We must employ skilled and well-trained mechanics, such as silversmiths, engravers, metal spinners, etc. The workmanship is principally hand work, and therefore labor is the important part of the product. The European mechanics receive about one-third the wages we are obliged to pay our mechanics; besides, the European manufacturer has also the advantage in working his men a greater number of hours. All this is favorable to the foreign manufacturer, and by giving the purchaser here the advantage of the "free import clause" it has been the means of ruining this important industry for both the mechanic and manufacturer in this country. We also want to add that in the entire metal industry our mechanics are only second to the high-class jeweler; the highest grade of workmanship is displayed in "ecclesiastical work." The importation of this particular line of work has been going on for a century. The industry has developed in this country to such an extent in the past twenty-five years that we are well able to compete with the foreigner in every respect with a reasonable tariff against importation, but since the clause in question was inserted in the prevailing tariff and the misuse of it our industry has suffered. The institutions who use this class of work are well able to purchase our domestic goods; they are supported wholly by the American pub lic, and there is absolutely no reason why they should support or patronize foreign competition in preference to home industry. We therefore appeal to your honorable commission in charge of these matters to give our cause due consideration and recommend that this "free import clause" be stricken out and a reasonable duty be imposed against the importation of this class of work. Respectfully submitted. WRIGHT MANUFACTURING CO. (INC.), EXHIBIT A. OATH ON FREE ENTRY OF ARTICLES INTENDED FOR USE OF COLLEGES, SCHOOLS, ETC. [Under paragraphs 503, 638, 649, 701, and 702 of the act of July 24, 1897.] PORT OF do solemnly, sincerely, and truly swear that I am located at imported by and for the sole use of said in the Personally appeared before me, the said identical person named in the foregoing affidavit, and thereto. Witness my hand and official seal, this day of This oath may be taken before any notary public or collector of customs. THE DAPRATO STATUARY COMPANY, CHICAGO, ILL., WISHES A PROTECTIVE DUTY PLACED UPON CHURCH STATUARY. CHICAGO, November 27, 1908. Hon. HENRY S. BOUTELL, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are among your constituents and are engaged in a business of manufacturing church statuary in the city of Chicago. We are the largest manufacturers of this kind in the United States, though there are several others of considerable size and importance. Religious statues are allowed to be imported free of duty into the United States where purchased for churches, schools, etc. The great bulk of our trade is with religious churches and schools. The foreign houses are shipping their goods into this country in large quantities and are not only underselling us but doing so at an immense profit. This subject is covered in paragraph 649, free list, act of 1897. The hearing on this paragraph before the Ways and Means Committee is set for Saturday, November 28. In common with some of the other houses we have sent Mr. William L. Tierney, attorney, of No. 27 William street, New York City, to appear before your committee on that day and ask to have the paragraph so revised that a duty of from 35 per cent to 60 per cent will be levied on the foreign article. We may in addition send one of our own representatives to be heard. There are also two other houses in Chicago, Bernard Statuary Company and Biagi Statuary Company. We ask you in behalf of ourselves and the other interests to favor us with your attention. We will have our representative, Mr. Tierney, speak to you on the matter. We know of no serious opposition to our measure excepting from across the water, and our only purpose is to protect ourselves in the prices that now obtain. We regret your absence in Washington prevents our taking the matter up more fully with you in person at this time. Yours, respectfully, DAPRATO STATUARY CO. W. WICKHAM SMITH, NEW YORK CITY, COUNSEL FOR IMPORTERS OF CHURCH REGALIA AND STATUARY, PROTESTS AGAINST ANY CHANGE IN THE PRESENT LAW. 32 BROADWAY, New York City, February 4, 1909. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: As counsel for importers of church regalia and casts of sculpture for use in churches I submit the following protest against any change in the existing law relating to these articles. The present tariff provides duties upon such articles according to their component material, but in paragraph 649 of the free list exempts them from duty, when specially imported in good faith, for use and by order of any society incorporated and established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use and by order of any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in the United States, or any state or public library, and not for sale. Various domestic manufacturers of what they call church statues have petitioned for the striking out from the free list of this exemption in favor of religious institutions, and they state without hesitation that it was the intention of the Congress which enacted the Dingley bill to impose duties on this article, and that that intent was frustrated by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Benziger v. United States, 192 U. S., 38. If, however, the members of your honorable committee will read the decision referred to they will see that the court was giving effect to what it believed to have been the intent of Congress and to the uniform policy not only of Congress, but of the executive branch of the Government. Thus the court says (p. 45): An examination of the provisions of the various statutes shows a somewhat uniform purpose on the part of Congress to provide free entry to casts of marble, bronze, alabaster, or plaster of Paris, and also statuary and specimens of sculpture, when specially imported in good faith for the societies enumerated in the acts. The court called attention to a decision of the Treasury Department in 1891, in which, considering such claims as are now made on behalf of the manufacturers, it said: The department believes that the crude or inartistic character of the figures under consideration can not be urged as a reason for their exclusion from the benefits of free entry. It is fair to infer a liberal intention on the part of Congress from the fact of its inclusion of religious institutions among those to which the privilege of free entry is extended. Religious institutions are not schools of art, nor can congregations without adequate means always consult æsthetic rules in regard to the equipment of their churches. It is the sentiment of pious associations which gives the figure its efficiency as an aid to the religious worship, and the plaster cast may in this way be as serviceable to the humble worshiper as the more costly work of genius. We respectfully submit that the court was right in its recognition of the policy of the Government, and that no reason has been shown why that policy should now be discontinued. There is an abundant field for the manufacturers of so-called statuary in this country now without further stimulating their business by imposing a tax upon churches; and any policy which would permit the importation of costly statues by rich congregations and entitle them to free entry as works of art, and which would impose taxes upon articles of a less artistic and expensive character imported by poor congregations, is a most unjust discrimination to which Congress should never give its sanction. If the whole scheme of the tariff, as applied for many years, by which articles imported for educational or religious purposes are accorded free entry is to be abandoned, then, of course, these particular articles are entitled to no different treatment from others, but we can not believe that it will be the policy of Congress to make such a radical change in the law. If, on the other hand, any articles imported for religious or educational purposes are to be admitted to free entry, then we submit there are no articles which are more entitled to that privilege than those which form the subject of this communication. The amount of revenue that the Government would derive by taxing these articles would be trivial. The manufacturers who are reaching out for further advantages and higher profits are few, but the benefits which are conferred upon poor and struggling churches, by reducing the cost to them of indispensable articles of church decoration which are calculated to inspire and foster religious feeling and devotional aspiration, are extended over the whole country, and we respectfully urge that no good reason has been shown for withholding them. In the statement of William L. Tierney, No. 27 William street, New York City, counsel for the domestic manufacturers of church statuary, so called, we find it stated that the cost of a 5-foot statue cast in composition of rich decoration in Chicago, exclusive of transportation charges to New York, and of selling costs, sales commission, or profit of any kind, is $40.08. We inclose herewith, as Exhibit A, a copy of extracts from the catalogues of the Daprato Statuary Company, of Chicago, and the Bernardini Statuary Company, of New York. From these it will be seen that the Daprato Statuary Company offers for sale a 5-foot statue of rich decoration, a statue called "Mother of grace," at a price of $41. If this statue costs $10.08, exclusive of transportation charges, selling costs, sales commission, or profit, how can the manufacturer offer it freely for sale to the public at less than 3 per cent over the manufacturing cost? As a matter of fact, we are advised that this manufacturer allows 20 per cent trade discount, so that his real selling price is less than $33 net, when he claims that it costs him $40.08 for material and labor to make the statue. With regard to the Bernardini statue, the catalogue price for a 5foot statue of rich decoration, St. Joseph with lily, is $35. We are advised that the trade get 20 per cent discount. This would make an actual selling price of $28 net. Yet the manufacturer claims that his actual cost to manufacture it, exclusive of transportation charges, or selling costs, or sales commission, or profit of any kind, is $40.08. These facts will speak for themselves, and we do not consider that any comment on them is necessary. We therefore respectfully urge that no change be made in the existing law with reference to these articles. W. WICKHAM SMITH, Counsel for Importers of Church Regalia and Casts of Sculpture. NATURAL-HISTORY SPECIMENS. [Paragraph 666 and Section 6.] EDW. A. KLAGES, OF CRAFTON, PA., WISHES NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANICAL, AND MINERALOGICAL SPECIMENS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES ADMITTED FREE OF DUTY. CRAFTON, ALLEGHENY CO., Pa., Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, M. C., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In the proposed revision of the tariff, the writer, as a naturalist, and more especially in behalf of entomology-the science of such immense importance to agriculture-most earnestly requests that the word "public" be stricken out of paragraph 666 of the tariff law of 1897, which reads as follows: "Specimens of natural history, botany, and mineralogy, when imported for scientific public collections, and not for sale." I trust that the Committee on Ways and Means will recommend the change above named, and that the Congress shall make the desired amendment and thus not only encourage useful sciences, but, at the same time, relieve our country of the ignominious distinction of being the only one that puts a tariff (tax) on private scientific research. Very truly, yours, EDW. A. KLAGES. W. J. HOLLAND, OF PITTSBURG, PA., THINKS THAT ALL NATURALHISTORY SPECIMENS SHOULD BE FREE OF DUTY. Hon. JOHN DALZELL, M. C., Washington, D. C. 5545 FORBES STREET, Pittsburg, December 21, 1908. DEAR SIR: Natural-history specimens imported for study by individuals, as well as by colleges and museums, should be put on the free list. They were free formerly, and are free now when imported by institutions of learning. They are not free now in the case of the |