in the hope that the experience gained will compensate for the salary forgone.

In this country the apprenticeship system neither obtains nor is considered desirable. The employees are paid high salaries, in keeping with the risks assumed.

A reduction in the existing tariff would mean the importation from abroad of all ethers, essences, extracts, flavors, etc., used in this country, and the effacement of the home manufacturers now giving employment to numerous employees.

Under the existing tariff the duty on butyric acid is 25 per cent. On ethers that is, the compound of ethers, esters, etc.-it is $1 per pound, but not less than 25 per cent. On alcohol amylic, one-fourth cent per pound. On alcohol for flavoring perfumes, etc., 60 cents per pound, plus 45 per cent. On cognac oil and fruit ethers it is $2 per pound, but not less than 25 per cent. On coloring for brandy, wine, beer, or other liquids it is 50 per cent. On fruit ethers, oils, or essences, $2 per pound, but not less than 25 per cent of the value. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any statement prepared showing the difference in labor here in this country and on the other side?

Mr. SPRINGER. The cost of labor, especially in this line, is practically nil on the other side. As I said before, there are always plenty of chemists just graduating from the universities who are very anxious to get into these factories who are willing, on account of the experience to be gained, to charge absolutely nothing. I know that they get all the labor they require except for the most menial jobs. On this side no difference how young the graduate is, provided he has the slightest experience, he charges quite a respectable amount, and it certainly amounts to a couple of dollars a day even with little or no experience.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You stated a little while ago that one reason why this duty should be maintained was the high tax on alcohol in this country. Could you not manufacture these articles out of denatured alcohol?

Mr. SPRINGER. It is not allowed. It is expressly forbidden.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. And you are required to pay the full duty?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir; on alcohol.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In the European countries where they have a tax on alcohol do they exempt these products from the tax?

Mr. SPRINGER. That is something I can not answer; but the tax

on alcohol would be far less than what we pay on this side.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do you recall what the tax on pure alcohol is? Mr. SPRINGER. Two dollars and ten cents.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I mean in foreign countries.

Mr. SPRINGER. I do not know. In most places it is free absolutely. There is an import duty, but there is no tax on it.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It is only denatured alcohol that is free?

Mr. SPRINGER. On the other side?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. The tax is so small that it really amounts to nothing. Take Germany, for instance, and the idea with Germany is to use as much alcohol as it possibly can in order to protect the sugar industry, which they are gradually losing, and they want to convert sugar into alcohol, so that if they lost the American sugar trade they

will still have use for the alcohol. Therefore, Germany would be the last country in the world to favor a heavy tax.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You do not know what the tax is on alcohol in Germany?

Mr. SPRINGER. No, sir. I know it is very slight.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Have you any figures showing what the cost of labor is in Germany as compared with the cost of labor in this country? You have not prepared any figures?

Mr. SPRINGER. No, sir; except that I know they are very small. There is one firm which I just happened to think of which has given the amounts they pay their employees and where it runs to 30, 40, or 50 cents we pay about $3 a day.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But you have not any figures that would advise the committee as to the exact information?

Mr. SPRINGER. No, sir.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE R. BOWER, PRESIDENT HENRY BOWER CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PHILADELРНІА, РА.

Mr. BOWER. I will state that the articles in which my company is interested are not protected by patents on any secret process. All of the chemical processes and reactions are matters of general knowledge throughout the world, and any success we may have had is due to our chemical skill and to the protective tariff of which we have had the advantage throughout our career. The Dingley bill is in a great measure satisfactory to us.

If you will permit me I will take up the articles in which I am interested in the order in which they appear in the Dingley bill. Paragraph 1, the fifth line, chromic acid, we would advocate that the duty be retained at 3 cents per pound, inasmuch as it should be logically so in accordance with paragraphs 62 and 74, to which I will refer later. As to sulphuric acid or oil of vitriol, not specially provided for in this act, the argument can be better made by those who are more largely interested, Mr. Howard, who has just been before you, being one of those.

Paragraph 5, ammonia, we should advocate that the duty on sulphate of ammonia be retained at three-tenths of 1 cent per pound. It is in a measure protective. There was 32,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia imported into the United States during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907.

Mr. DALZELL. How many tons?

Mr. BOWER. Thirty-two thousand tons.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean to include all ammonia in that? Mr. BOWER. That is the sulphate of ammonia. We do not ask a change; we merely ask that the three-tenths of a cent a pound be retained.

The CHAIRMAN. The importation of phosphate of ammonia is very small, as I notice.

Mr. BOWER. That is a medicinal drug.

We would like to have taken from the "index," as we express it, and have specifically mentioned liquid anhydrous ammonia, which has been placed under paragraph 3 as a chemical compound and subject to 25 per cent ad valorem. We would suggest that the liquid

anhydrous ammonia should be included here at a specific rate. The English price of the liquid is 10 pence at London. Our price at point of production is 25 cents per pound. We would like to see a specific duty of 5 cents per pound instead of the 25 per cent ad valorem. The CHAIRMAN. It is on the free list now?

Mr. BOWER. Now it is paying 25 per cent ad valorem in paragraph 3, under "Chemical compounds not otherwise provided for." Mr. DALZELL. You want it specifically named?

Mr. BOWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILL. In 1907 we imported 65,000,000 pounds of sulphate of ammonia and in 1906 the imports amounted to 18,000,000 pounds. The price was the same both years. Why was that?

Mr. BOWER. That was due to the greater prosperity of the farmers. Possibly they were able to buy more fertilizer.

Proceeding with paragraph 5, we would ask in addition to anhydrous ammonia that aqua ammonia be specifically mentioned at a specific rate and the duty be assessed on the basis of ammonia contained. Aqua ammonia, water of ammonia, being a solution of ammonia gas and being commercially handled in varying strengths, the manufacturer's standard would be the percentage of ammonia contained. There are tables that have been prepared and passed upon by the Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the United States that are available to readily show the percentage of ammonia in each varying strength of aqua ammonia. If anhydrous ammonia gas be at 5 cents per pound, NH, which is the chemical symbol for ammonia in aqua ammonia, we would suggest it should be 5 cents per pound for the ammonia contained in the aqua ammonia.

I pass now to paragraphs 45, 48, 50, and 54. We are merely interested in them, as the manufacturers of these materials are consumers of our products. The duties that have been placed upon blues, chromium colors, orange mineral, vermilion red, etc., are based upon the duties that these people's raw materials are subject to, these raw materials being our articles of manufacture.

Mr. DALZELL. Do you want to increase the duty?

Mr. BOWER. No, sir; we would like to have the duty retained. As to paragraph 62 and paragraph 74, bichromate and chromate of potash are now subject to a duty of 3 cents a pound, while the duty on bichromate and chromate of soda is 2 cents per pound.

Mr. HILL. Why do we not make the 65,000,000 pounds of sulphate of ammonia?

Mr. BOWER. The retort coke oven people are the ones to solve that problem, and I think they ultimately will. We not only should make the 65,000,000 pounds of sulphate of ammonia, but we should displace the nitrate of soda which comes from South America and goes into fertilizer.

Mr. HILL. You say "ultimately," but why not now?

Mr. BOWER. We have not the ammonia product in this country. Mr. HILL. Any change in the duty would not affect this importation?

Mr. BOWER. No, sir. The three-tenths of 1 cent per pound is about compensatory for the difference in cost of freight.

Mr. GAINES. We have not the ammonia product?

Mr. BOWER. There are several reasons. There is a great waste that goes off from the coke, as you know.

Mr. GAINES. Ammonia is not one of the things manufactured from coal tar?

Mr. BOWER. No, sir. I was about to say that the industry of bichromate of potash and soda is an old one in this country, founded prior to 1845 in Baltimore by Mr. Jesse Tyson, and while it is not an article of great importance, of course it is of importance to those who are interested in it. We would like to have the duty retained as it is.

Paragraph 66, prussiate of potash, 4 cents per pound for the yellow. We are not interested in the red; in fact, I think there is no red made in the United States at present. During the days of the Wilson bill this article was subject only to a duty of 25 per cent and the importations came over here and wiped out pretty nearly all the surplus we had accumulated up to that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any statement to make as to cyanide of potassium?

Mr. BOWER. I am not competent to speak on cyanide of potassium. I have already spoken of paragraph 74 in connection with paragraph 62.

Chromite of soda is subject to 25 per cent duty as a chemical compound under paragraph 3, which is not protective. We have three times tried to manufacture it and three times we have had to stop with a bad balance on our ledger. We lost money every time, due entirely to the fact that the depression of the price abroad rendered the duty less being levied at an ad valorem rate. We take it that it is worth about 80 per cent in efficiency of prussiate of potash, so that if the potash duty is 4 cents a pound we would be very glad to see the duty on soda say 3 cents a pound.

Mr. DALZELL. A specific duty?

Mr. BOWER. Yes, sir. We are prepared and have our plant ready to manufacture the article at any time that we can see a profit. At the present time it is impossible.

As to sulphide of soda in paragraph 76 we would ask to have that retained at 14 cents per pound, with the amendment that it be applicable to crystal sulphide, not the concentrated or fused, which has double strength and in fact double the value of the crystal.

There is one article that is not specifically mentioned that has become one of considerable importance in the chemical industry— tetrachloride of tin, and we would ask that a paragraph such as this be inserted in the bill to be prepared:

Tetrachloride of tin, liquid anhydrous

It is liquid free of water

crystallized or amorphous, or in solution, 6 cents per pound of anhydrous tetrachloride contained.

Mr. DALZELL. What does it pay now?

Mr. BOWER. Twenty-five per cent, under paragraph 3.

The CHAIRMAN. What does the article cost imported?

Mr. BOWER. It costs now as nearly as we can gather about 21 cents per pound.

The CHAIRMAN. And you want a 30 per cent duty?

Mr. BOWER. Yes, sir; it is subject to 25 per cent now.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give the committee some reason why you think the duty should be increased, besides your general statement?

Mr. BOWER. Merely the fact that the material does come in and is in competition with the American stuff right along.

Mr. DALZELL. What is the amount of the importations?

Mr. BOWER. They are very small. It is not a very large article of very great importance.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you will have to furnish the committee with some facts so that we will be able to arrive at some conclusion. Mr. BOWER. It is my purpose to ask leave to file a written brief, giving you all the facts and figures which you can possibly want. I merely wanted to make this verbal statement this morning.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. A part of this material is already manufactured in this country?

Mr. BOWER. We manufacture all of the articles which I have mentioned.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You have been able to manufacture them successfully under the present tariff?

Mr. BOWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. What reason can you assign why we should increase the tariff?

Mr. BOWER. We could make more if we could secure more of the market.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. It is not for the protection of your industry that you desire the increase, but it is purely a question of increasing the profits of the manufacturers?

Mr. BOWER. Yes, sir; that is what it boils down to.

Mr. DALZELL. You think the duty you suggest would be prohibitive?

Mr. BOWER. Yes, sir; practically so.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Where do you expect the Government to derive any revenue if you have prohibitive duties?

Mr. BOWER. There are a great many articles subject to the tariff that have to be imported. There is no necessity of importing things that we can make here, so far as I can see.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES EVANS, REPRESENTING CARTER & SCATTERGOOD, MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. EVANS. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will send in my brief. Paragraph 66 of Schedule A, yellow prussiate of potash, is the only subject that I wish to speak of. We would like, if it is thought best in your good judgment, that the present duty be retained, 4 cents a pound on yellow prussiate of potash. My grandfather started in business in Philadelphia in 1834, and we are to-day the largest makers of prussiate of potash, producing about 1,300 tons annually.

The CHAIRMAN. The ad valorem duty on red potash is about 371⁄2 per cent and on yellow potash 39 per cent?

Mr. EVANS. That is approximately correct.

The CHAIRMAN. The imports of red potash amounted to 56,000 pounds in 1907 and the imports of yellow potash 1,500,000 pounds. Which is used the most?

Mr. EVANS. The red has fallen to a very small figure. The yellow is much the more important salt. With your permission, I want to