It would seem fair to infer that the pottery of other kinds coming from Germany entered with an undervaluation bearing the same ratio to the real value that the Holland teas did. If this be true, then the figures given in the German Year Book, notwithstanding the fact that they are three-fifths greater than the valuation upon which they paid duty, are still away below, more than $1,000,000 per year below, the price at which the same goods would have been appraised if they had come from England. The proportion stated for the year 1907 would be 193:5,153,943::35:9,332,012; for the year 1908, 19:5,287,267::35:9,578,082. In the two years pottery imported from Germany was entered at our ports at a valuation of $8,458,884 below the value at which the same goods would have been appraised had they come from England. The administrative clause of the Dingley bill, which makes even possible such gross discrimination against the commerce of a friendly nation, must be corrected. Why, if the wages of workmen are lower in Germany than in England, we need more tariff upon them and not less. It is objected that this change can not be effected because it would render unnecessary an army of special agents and appraisers who' are now in the employ of the Government and who would use their influence to defeat the reform. While it is difficult to understand why a feature in our tariff law so unscientific as the administrative clause relating to ad valorem duties has obtained for over half a century, while everywhere has been complaint and comment about the difficulty of its execution and its unsatisfactory operation, I am loath to think that our predecessors in Congress were influenced by the mere hunger of patronage in retaining this provision. Nor will this Congress hesitate for any such unworthy reason to make the change if it is thought right by a majority of its members. When this idea was suggested to the president of the American Potters' Association he expressed surprise that it was not adopted long ago; at the same time, however, saying that intensely interested as he had been in the subject he had never thought of it before. I advert to this for the reason that it has been said that the potters do not ask this. They do. They made other suggestions of change, however, because they feared that this could not be had, inasmuch as it would affect all the schedules having ad valorem duties. Respectfully submitted. JAMES KENNEDY, M. C., THE DURBROW & HEARNE MANUFACTURING CO., NEW YORK CITY, OFFERS SUGGESTIONS ON VALUATIONS. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 12 WOOSTER STREET, New York, January 5, 1909. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIRS: If not too late, we would ask if some modification of the present definition of market value of goods assessed "ad valocould not be embodied in the new tariff under discussion. rem We refer only to goods which are purchased outright in the open market. Under the present interpretation of the law the attempt is made to ascertain what the home price on goods is and assess duties on that basis irrespective of what is actually paid. In effect this almost constitutes a specific duty instead of an “ad valorem" as specified in tariffs on many goods. We respectfully submit that, viewed from the point of protection, the home price on goods has no bearing on the matter of protecting our industries. It is the export price that affects the matter. If the duty is not high enough on the export price, then make it sufficiently high. Practically all goods imported into the United States are bought for export. The foreign manufacturer who parts with his goods for no other consideration but the cash return for same as per invoice rendered is the factor to be reckoned with. We submit that the bona fide purchase of goods, for money, in the open market by an American merchant from a foreign merchant should be the basis on which to assess ad valorem duties. There is no reason why American merchants should not have their statements (under oath if necessary) accepted as to these facts. when not controverted by any knowledge as to statements being untrue. We also submit that in all appraisement hearings, formal or informal, before one, two, or three appraisers, the merchant is entitled to know what evidence he must contest, and should have the privilege, if necessary, of cross-examining government witnesses. One-sided hearings where the appraisers conceal the facts on which they decide against merchants are un-American and unjust. Yours, respectfully, DURBROW & HEARNE MFG. CO., Manufacturers and Importers of Small Machinery, R. J. HEARN. DOUBLE DUTIES. HON. WILLIAM S. GREENE, M. C., THINKS THERE SHOULD BE SOME PROVISION FOR ARTICLES ONCE IMPORTED AND SENT ABROAD FOR REPAIRS. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 15, 1909. Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. I MY DEAR SIR: Constituents of mine are interested in the use in this country of the musical instrument known as the concertina. am informed that none of these are made in this country, nor can they be repaired here. Hence, it is necessary when they need to be repaired that they be sent abroad. There is a duty on these instruments when they are first brought into this country, and I understand that when they are sent abroad to be repaired another duty is charged upon the same instruments to bring them back. This cer tainly seems an injustice, and I call the matter to your attention for the consideration of your committee to see if some remedy for this double tax can not be evolved. Very truly, yours, WM. S. GREENE, M. C., Thirteenth Massachusetts Congressional District. ENGLISH PATENT LAW. HON. S. BRUNDIDGE, JR., M. C., SUBMITS LETTER OF E. C. LIPPMANN, TUPELO, ARK., RELATIVE TO PATENTED ARTICLE. TUPELO, ARK., November 28, 1908. Hon. SAMUEL W. MCCALL, M. C., House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have recently patented a roller guide for band saws under No. 876816, dated January 14, 1908, of the United States Patent Office, and am expecting to have the manufactured product on the market within the next few weeks. It is a very useful and important invention, and will, I think, be largely adopted by the users of band saws. A short time ago I read an article relative to a change in the patent laws of England, in which it was shown that American inventors could easily be deprived of the benefits of their inventions, it being stated that England now requires that the manufacture of all patented articles must be begun within her borders inside of two years after the date of an English patent, or the patent would expire, and it would then become possible for an article to be shipped into this country in the original package, and the holder of letters patent for such article would have no remedy except to prosecute each individual distributer. It was pointed out that the United States might retaliate by passing a similar law, but that that would still be unfair on account of the greater number of patents issued by the United States than by England. In the meantime the inventor would be standing helplessly waiting for a readjustment, and seeing the benefits of his labor and money shared by those who had possibly never given an instant of thought or a dollar of expense toward making an improvement over old methods. This is particularly true when applied to the smaller and less valuable inventions, of which mine is one." As I would not be able to start to manufacturing my guide in England and the prosecution of individual distributers in this country would cost more than my profits would amount to, I see nothing but a loss of all the labor and money I have used in perfecting my invention, unless a tariff of sufficient amount can be put upon the manufactured guide to make it unprofitable for anyone to ship same into this country. I would be very glad to have you give this matter your consideration and, if you see fit, to take it up with the committee on tariff legislation and see if they will grant me the necessary protection. My guide is the only all-roller guide for band saws that is made, and any contrivance using rollers would be an infringement on the idea, and if the committee will grant this protection, I hope they will make the description broad enough to bar any roller guide. that may be gotten up with the object of reaping the benefits that I would otherwise secure from my invention. The retail price of the different sizes of guides will be about as follows: Guides for saw blades 1 inches and less in width.. Guides for saw blades over 14 inches and up to 3 inches wide. ...each.. $10.00 20.00 50.00 ..do.... ...do.... ..do.... 75.00 These prices will be subject to a trade discount, but will give you an idea of what it will take to protect; the net cost of manufacturing being expected to be one-half of the retail prices of the smaller sizes and a little more than one-half the retail prices of the larger sizes. Assuring you of my appreciation of anything you may do for me, I beg to remain, E. C. LIPPMANN. Yours, very truly, EXPORT DUTIES. ROSWELL A. BENEDICT, NEW YORK CITY, SUGGESTS AN EXPORT TARIFF AND PROHIBITIVE PROTECTION. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, 29 BROADWAY NEW YORK, January 9, 1909. Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: If your committee has time to consider general policies at all, in the exacting labor necessary to frame a tariff law, will you not consider the following points, and so far as you may agree with me let your agreement be reflected in some measure in the new law? (1) Ought not the country gradually to learn to pay its own way by internal taxation and place tariffs on imports more and more for the purpose of protection to domestic employment and wages, even to the limit of a final cutting off of imports altogether? Does not our looking in part to customs duties for revenue lead to the encouragement of imports, the displacement of domestic employment and wages, and so domestic business, and a necessary lowering of our means of support, and therefore our citizenship and our civilization? Our population increases both by native procreation and by immigration. All increase in domestic consumption must come from one of two sources, viz, increase in the number of those employed, or increase in per capita wages, every aggregate increase being made up of these two elements in varying proportions. During the currency of the Dingley law there has been a very large increase in competitive imports. I believe something like an increase of 100 per cent. These added imports must have been absorbed either by the increased consuming power per capita, by the increase of the consuming population, or by both of these agencies combined. The question is how far this absorption of foreign goods can be traced to these sources of consumption, separately. considered; for inasmuch as the country which furnishes either the increase in per capita wages or in the number of consumers is alone entitled to benefit by the correspondent increase in consuming or purchasing power, it would be instructive to know from which of these sources of increase belonging to us alone foreign producers were indebted for their opportunity to destroy consuming power in this country. For, of course, since employment and wages must precede consuming power, it follows that employment of foreign instead of domestic producers, as has been the case to the extent of something like $800,000,000 of competitive goods annually for some years past, has destroyed domestic consuming power to the extent of the wage-yielding employment which would otherwise have come to our own producers had the production taken place at home instead of abroad. How far has the apparent increase in domestic consumption during the currency of the Dingley law been due to increase in per capita wages, and how far to increase in population? May it not be that the increase in consuming power is represented by increase in wages of skilled labor entirely and not at all by increase in population? This would leave the increment of population from native and foreign sources during that period short in employment by the whole employment required for producing the $800,000,000 of competitive imports annually. May it not be that the increase in aggregate consuming power was due both to per capita wage increase and to increased population, but still be far short of what it should have been and would have been had the competing imports not have been made, but instead an equal amount answering the demand had been made in this country? In this calculation it should be remembered that employment here, quantity for quantity, has a far different value in raising consuming power than it has abroad, because the wages arising here from a given employment are from twice to twenty times the wages arising from the same employment abroad, depending upon the foreign locality in which such employment is lodged. When we import $800,000,000 of competing products we must bear in mind that the value of $800,000,000 is the declared foreign value upon which tariffs are collected, and that this value is always stated at the lowest possible figure in order that the smallest amount possible may be paid in the way of customs duties. It is likely that $800,000,000 in foreign values, taken promiscuously from the world's round export into this country, represents something like $4.000.000.000 in wages here, following each article from the rawest state to the point of consumption, and that the canceled exchanges which would otherwise have been current in this country would amount in a year to from $20,000,000,000 to $40,000,000,000, seeing that every dollar placed in trade here passes from hand to hand at least five times and possibly ten times in a twelvemonth. May not this cancellation of domestic business, by stopping our consuming power and destroying domestic exchanges at the rate above named, account largely for the great depression and wide unemployment which is even now severely felt in many places? |