plains States and the mountain States to the West, and they must pay that charge. Their products must be sent over that same country to the East, where the consumer is found. But in this particular industry that I feel concerned in it is not a crop that can be raised in one year. A cherry tree does not produce until it is 10 years old any considerable crop of a profitable nature, and to neglect the trees for a year or two almost destroys the orchard, and the farmer can not keep up his orchard unless he is given some protection against cherries raised in foreign countries by pauper labor and without the cost of transportation entering into its being brought into this country. Senator SIMMONS. Can you give the committee the total domestic production of these cherries and the total imports? Senator MCNARY. I inquired of the Department of Agriculture a few days ago if they had figures as to the importation from Italy, and they said they had not. Senator SMOOT. You are referring to the cherries in brine? Senator McNARY. Yes. Senator SMOOT. The other witness said 60,000 barrels. Senator MCNARY. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but I am willing to assume that it is until I have better authority. Senator SIMMONS. The other witness said that, but he did not give us the amount of domestic production. Senator McNARY. You must understand that the cherries which are not used for that purpose go largely into cans and are consumed in that manner. A few are dried and some are put into jellies and jams, but a great part, or the larger part, goes into brine to be used for maraschino purposes. Naturally, the man who sells to the retail trade wants to get his cherries as cheap as possible, and he does not care where he gets them from. But I do not appear for that end of the industry; I am appearing for the men who produce them. As to the other items, walnuts are raised in these several States. The filbert is a new industry. Mr. RHEINSTROM. May I interrupt the Senator here? Senator MCNARY. I do not care to be interrupted now, thank you; I must go to the Senate in a few moments.. The filbert is a new industry now starting on the coast. There are no available statistics of the amount that goes into domestic business, because the oldest trees in our country are perhaps not more than 7 or 8 years old, excepting perhaps a few individual trees. The filbert is being brought in from Spain and Italy to-day, and the price is away down below the cost of production. The same is true of the walnut industry. It requires infinite care to produce this fruit, on account of the age the tree must attain before it begins to bear. Senator SIMMONS. That is the English walnut that you are referring to? Senator MCNARY. The English walnut, yes. The principal importation of the English walnut to-day comes from China, and I am informed by correspondents that the nuts are being sold at from 8 to 9 cents a pound. The grower who raises walnuts can not put those walnuts on the market under 15 or 16 cents, and no profit can be made, practically, under 20 cents. You may say that 20 cents 1 to-day is the cost of production of this nut, and great quantities are coming in from oriental countries. I submit to you gentlemen the situation as I believe it to be. Senator MCLEAN. Is there a difference in the quality of the nuts? Senator MCNARY. Only that the American nut is superior, in my opinion. The varieties which are grown on the coast are, perhaps, as fine as can be found anywhere. They have a white pellicle and are most delicious in flavor, whereas the Japanese nut is rather apt to be rancid and is inferior in size, but those who are looking for cheap nuts will take them. I think that is as far as I desire to present the matter this morning. (The following statement was subsequently filed by the National Association of Manufacturers of Fruit and Flavoring Syrups, and is printed here in full:) Hon. BOIES PENROSE, Chairman Committee on Finance, United States Senate. JANUARY 14, 1921. DEAR SIR: On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers of Fruit and Flavoring Syrups we respectfully submit the following for the kind consideration of your committee with regard to the proposed tax on imported cherries in brine. We desire to preface what we have to say by stating that the proposed Amendment came to our notice so recently (since we arrived in Washington) that we did not have time in which to prepare to appear before your committee at the open hearings last Tuesday, and as a matter of fact we are not as fully prepared even now to submit a statement as we would like to be as in the time available we have not been able to secure all the facts regarding this subject or advise with the members of this association. Therefore, the statements that we shall make are general in their nature. In the first place, it might be well for us to explain that the association on whose behalf we are submitting this statement is comprised of practically all of the manufacturers of soda fountain fruits and flavoring syrups. The business of the members of this association is to supply soda fountain dispensaries and ice cream manufacturers with crushed fruit syrups and flavorings used by those industries. But a large proportion of the business of our industry consists of processing these cherries that are imported into this country in brine and put them into a condition whereby they are suitable for the various purposes for which they are intended to be used in this country. This processing consists of taking the cherries out of the brine and eliminating from the cherries every trace of the brine that it is possible to eliminate, and then properly preserve and pack them in a flavor that is like maraschino which are then known in the trade as maraschino cherries. We will not burden you with any more of the details of this processing. We have said the foregoing so that you will understand the class of cherry involved and no doubt you are familiar with the same. Aside from supplying the soda fountain trade with the products referred to, a very large proportion of the business of our members is in packing these finished cherries in large containers, such as barrels, and selling them to the confectionery manufacturers to be used by them in such products as chocolate dipped cherries. Also in packing these finished cherries in glass bottles for sale through grocery stores direct to consumers who use them in making salads, decorating cakes, and embellishing lemonade, etc. We figure that very closely to 45 or 50 per cent of all these cherries that are imported into this country are used in the confectionery industry, but we have not been able to secure the exact figures and this is only our estimate. As already explained, the cherries are used by the confectioners largely for dipping purposes; that is, for being covered with chocolate and sold as chocolate-covered cherries, and in this connection we call particular attention to the following facts: The class of cherries that are imported come entirely from France and Italy, chiefly Italy, and are considerably smaller than those of the same variety (Royal Anne) as grown on the Pacific coast. The confectioner by necessity must use a small cherry for dipping purposes running from 900 to 1,500 cherries to the gallon. These imported cherries suit his needs, but the cherries grown on the Pacific coast are much larger, running in size from 400 to 600 cherries to the gallon. One particular reason why the confectioner can not use to good advantage the Pacific coast cherry is because it makes the piece of candy altogether too large, requiring more of the candy cream which surrounds the cherry in the center and more of the chocolate coating which covers the cherry and the cream. Also the larger the cherry and the more amount of candy cream in the center the more tendency there is that the piece of candy burst and the more necessary it becomes to have a heavier chocolate coating. This makes such a large piece of candy that it is not desirable from a manufacturing standpoint, because it is too large and does not pack well with all other kinds of candy in the same box. As we understand it, there are but few confectioners who make a specialty of packing these larger cherries, and generally this is done for fancy trade and the dipped cherries are packed individua ly without any other assortment. These imported cherries are suitable only to be sold as maraschino cherries, and to be used for the purpose indicated and other purposes for which mara-、 schino cherries are used, but they are not suitable to be used for preserves, pies, or other purposes for which our home grown (what we call tame cherries) are used by the household. Another point that we wish to call your attention to is that the price of candy and soda water, like all other commodities, has been high. During the war the public understood this to a certain extent for various reasons which necessitated these high prices, but now there is a public clamor for reduced prices in candy, soda-fountain drinks, etc. The result of this is that the manufacturers of these products are perplexed at the present time as to how to reduce the prices and still remain in business. Naturally they do not wish to incur the censure of the public. They must comply with public clamor if it can be done. Already both the confectionery industry and the soda-fountain industry have been made the subject of special taxation because of the idea that they are luxuries and that there is a vast profit in these industries, etc. The facts of the matter are that while the proposed tax on these cherries calls for 5 cents a pound on the who e cherry as imported, the cherry after being stemmed and pitted would show a shrinkage of 50 per cent, so that the tax would actually amount to 10 cents a pound on the cherries when ready to be processed for finished use. In addition to this, as is generally known, any tax on a commodity costs the ultimate consumer in paying this tax more than the actual amount of the tax originally. Another feature is that the effect of this tax would be to increase the cost of the class of confectionery in which these goods are used to an amount perhaps as great as the amount of the excise tax already placed on candy, it being 5 per cent on sales. This, of course, would be in the nature of a double tax. We understand that the purpose of this emergency tariff act is to protect American industries. The adoption of this amendment imposing a duty of 5 cents per pound on imported cherries in brine would afford us no protection and we can not see how such a tariff would benefit the growers of cherries in this country in view of the fact that all cherries produced in this country are now largely consumed for table use and canning purposes. The cherries grown in this country at the present time are not suitable for many purposes for which foreign cherries are used as explained, and in addition to this, there are not nearly enough of these native cherries grown to supply the demand of our industry. Of course, they could not begin to grow additional cherries in this country in the 10 months of the existence of this act, and, therefore, it would not act to foster the native industry but would enable the producers of those cherries in this country to get a higher price out of their product for which the American public would have to pay, and it would seem to us that the sole object of the bill is to bring about this benefit to the grower. Respectfully submitted. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF FRUIT AND FLAVORING SYRUPS. Address: 1238 First National Bank Building, Chicago, Ill. Senator MCCUMBER. Dr. Atkeson, the committee will be pleased to hear from you. STATEMENT OF DR. T. C. ATKESON, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL GRANGE. Dr. ATKESON. Mr. Chairman, I think I may say for our organization that we do not represent any special interests. We are 55 years old and we have organizations in 35 of the States, in all the States except the cotton-growing States south of Virginia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, having organizations in all those States and across the continent from Maine to California. We represent in our membership practically every agricultural interest in the country, except that of the cotton growers. And I may say that I am very much interested in cotton, because I have a son in southern Alabama trying to make a living on cotton. Our organization is sometimes called conservative. We are certainly not very radical, but we represent every agricultural interest in this country outside of the cotton growers in those few States, 10 or 12, that are especially interested in cotton growing. I might end all I care to say this morning by saying that our organization indorses unqualifiedly the present emergency tariff bill as an emergency proposition. If we were writing the bill we would extend it somewhat; I think we would include dairy products, poultry products, and perhaps some special matters. Senator SIMMONS. Would you include frozen meats? Dr. ATKESON. I do not know, Senator, whether we would or not; that is, we would have to stop somewhere. The sheep growers would like to exclude frozen meats. Senator MCCUMBER. You would, then, let the packers bring in the frozen meats from Argentina and elsewhere without any duty? Dr. ATKESON. I say, I do not know whether we would include frozen meats or not, because we would have to stop somewhere. Senator NUGENT. Would you impose a duty on live cattle and sheep? Dr. ATKESON. Certainly on sheep, and possibly on live cattle. But live cattle are not brought to this country to any considerable extent. Senator NUGENT. That is very true. If you impose a duty on live cattle and live sheep, comparatively small numbers of which are imported into this country, why would you not impose a duty on frozen lamb and mutton and beef? Dr. ATKESON. If I were discussing a general tariff proposition I would say include those things. I am trying to confine what I say to a consideration of this emergency proposition. As I understand this matter as it is now before Congress, it is largely a substitute for the strong presentation made by the sheep growers and woolgrowers of the country, in which they started out insisting upon an embargo on sheep and wool products, and our senatorial wisdom got to the point of deciding that the remedy was probably an emergency tariff bill. I do not care to lug in the railroad question and all the collateral questions involved in farm products and things that all the farmers are more or less interested in. We have one proposition before us, and that is the question of an emergency remedy, if possible, for a serious condition that confronts the American farmer to-day-every American farmer. I think I need make no exception. Practically every American farmer is confronted with a serious economic condition. Senator SMOOT. And everybody else. Dr. ATKESON. I am not a pessimist by a good deal; my natural inclination is to be an optimist. This country was here before I came and it will be here after I am gone, and our economic problems in the course of time must inevitably readjust themselves. So while I say I am not a pessimist but, rather, an optimist, I may introduce a rather unusual word that expresses my state of mind, and that is that I am an ameliorist. Senator Harding put "normalcy" on the map and I want to put 66 ameliorist on the map to-day. That is, to consider the situation as it is, our present economic difficulties that are now confronting the whole world, and that it is the duty of statesmen looking into the future and dealing with the present to ameliorate the conditions just as far as possible. I do not believe that the present emergency tariff bill will completely meet all the economic conditions of the present. A permanent tariff bill will perhaps deal more broadly and more scientifically and effectively with the economic problems than we can hope to have them dealt with in a 10-month bill or any other emergency effort to solve the problem. (At this point Senator Penrose entered and assumed the chair.) Dr. ATKESON. I am free to admit that I do not know what becomes of the difference between what the farmers receive for their products and what the consumers pay; but I do know this, that about 18 monthe ago we sold a beautiful flock of high-grade Shropshire sheep at $16 a head, and at that time I was paying in Washington, in a second-class restaurant, 35 cents for one little lamb chop, being about the sixteenth part of a pound, and I am still paying that price, when we can not get $3 a head for those same sheep. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Does not that situation disturb your optimism a little? Dr. ATKESON. Not a bit; I still want to ameliorate it. My own opinion is that the sheep industry in this country must perish off American soil unless something is done to protect the sheep growers and woolgrowers of America. They will always be able to grow sheep more cheaply in Australia and in Africa and Asia and in many other parts of the world than we can grow them in this country, and if we are to perpetuate the sheep industry in this country it must somehow and some way be protected, or at least ameliorated against this invasion of the American markets for both wool and mutton. The tariff on frozen-meat products would protect the mutton grower and lamb grower. Senator SMOOT. You are unqualifiedly in favor of the bill? Dr. ATKESON. We are unqualifiedly in favor of the bill as it stands. I would not amend it if in any measure it would jeopardize it as it is; and if we can get all we can get by subtracting some of the things that are in it we would still be in favor of the bill as ameliorated, because we believe that it will accomplish something toward bettering the condition of the farmers of this country, at least of the sheep growers, and, under present conditions, the wheat growers of the countryd ond denison mortoolong omoz noy evig toy bus omind ni zoittodo !donborg 30422-21-15 |