JUN 7 1921 LIBRARY American Economist DEVOTED TO THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN LABOR AND INDUSTRIES. American Economist Published Weekly by THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE OFFICERS OF THE LEAGUE. President JOSEPH R. GRUNDY. 2nd Vice-President WILBUR F. WAKEMAN Treasurer and General Secretary EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. Lyman B. Goff, R. I. W. Warren Barbour, N. Y. BOARD OF MANAGERS. CLASS OF 1922 Lyman B. Goff, R. I. George R.Meyercord, Ill. Henry B. Joy, Mich. A. F. Huston, Pa. CLASS OF 1923 Arthur J. Draper, N.C. W. B. Maddock, N. J. F. A. Springer, Conn. W.Warren Barbour, N.Y. Frank B.Hopewell, Mass. CLASS OF 1924 Joseph R. Grundy, Pa. A. H. Heisey, Ohio. Joseph Stroock, N. Y. Chester A.Braman, N.Y. CLASS OF 1925 B. A. Van Winkle, Ind. H. C. Lovis, N. Y. Frank H. Metcalf, Mass. H. Sanborn Smith, Ala. William Sloane, Va. MANAGERS. Arthur W. Calkins, Mo. Chas. E. Perkins, N. Y. J. Cecil Fee, W. Va. ADVISORY J. Fred'k Talcott, N. Y. J. R. Millar, Calif. VOL. LXVII NEW YORK FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 1921 Hiding Behind Anonymity. A writer in the New York Daily News Record of May 28th, who is stated in the "editor's note" to be "a representative of the American dye-stuff industry," attempts to answer the expose of the dye-grab, license-embargo system written by Mr. Warren F. Doane, editor of the Philadelphia Manufacturer, and reprinted in last week's issue of this paper from the Daily News Record. The writer is evidently the same man whose statements were referred to in an article appearing in the May 26th issue of the News Record. He then posed as "a representative of the small dyestuff manufacturers." In any event, the man who hides behind anonymity to get his views into print is unworthy of serious consideration. He must be ashamed of his name or ashamed of the cause which he "represents," or both. The writer of the article which appeared on May 28th quotes Mr. Doane as follows: "To summarize the first proposition in a single sentence, the domestic dye manufacturers want a unrestricted complete and monopoly of that industry, free of all foreign competition that might in any way regulate or restrict domestic prices." This is his comment thereon: This appears to mean-if it means anything that Mr. Doane objects to an American manufacturer requesting his Government to protect his industry against foreign_competition, and he calls this a seeking for a "monopoly." In what way does this differ from the demands made by the Philadelphia Protectionists and Col. J. P. Wood, who employ Mr. Poane? Do not they demand the same kind of Protection for their interests, and is not this the basis of the whole American theory of Protection? Mr. Anonymous knows, if he knows anything, that the two policies are absolutely dissimilar. He knows that Embargo is not Protection. The Philadelphia Protectionists are like any other Protectionists; they want a Protective Tariff which shall equalize the difference between American production costs and the lower foreign costs. That prevents the foreign NO. 22 producer from underselling the American producer, while it prevents the latter from unduly raising the price of his product, for the reason that if he does so the foreigner will undersell him. In other words, an adequate Protective Tariff permits competition. It also permits the domestic consumer to exercise a freedom of choice and to buy either the domestic or foreign product, as he prefers. The consumer has rights as well as the producer, and the latter should be content if he has the advantage of Protection for his product. The advantage is always with the domestic producer if the Tariff be adequate. 339 BROADWAY, NEW YORK Telephone, 5690 Franklin. Terms of Subscription for the AMERICAN ECONOMIST. $2.00 2.50 One Year, Foreign price, postpaid, Entered as second-class matter April 12, 1913, at the post office at New York, under the Act of March 3, 1879. On the other hand, under an embargo $2.00 a Year. Single Copy 5 Cents. the rights of the consumer are entirely disregarded. He has no choice but to buy the domestic product, no matter how inferior nor how unreasonable the price. It is true that there is an ostensible provision made for importing foreign goods if the domestic product is unreasonably high, but who is to decide what is unreasonable? Not the most interested party -the purchaser, but some minor officer in the government service, under the most favorable circumstances, and the other interested party, the profiteer, under the most unfavorable circumstances. Up to date, the profiteer has, for the most part, been the one to decide whether his price has been too high or whether his product has been satisfactory to the purchaser. Pro That is the difference, Mr. Anonymous, between Protection and Embargo. tection permits competition-Embargo pro-. hibits it. Protection prevents monopolyEmbargo permits it. Protection is fairEmbargo is unfair. Protection is honest -Embargo is dishonest. Protection is American-Embargo is un-American. Protection benefits the consumer as well as the domestic producer-Embargo benefits only the producer. At the last general election the voters pronounced in favor of a Protective Tariff, but they most certainly did not vote for monopoly. Embargo is monopoly and the voters will not stand for it. Woe to the party which is guilty of fastening the embargo-monopoly upon the country, for it will go down to defeat before the just fury of an outraged electorate. As Secretary Lansing said about the League of Nations, if the people knew what they were being committed to under the embargo infamy, they would not stand for it. The party which stands for it is sitting on a tank of T N T. An evidence of the rapid recovery of German production and trade is to be found in the following item which appears in the daily Commerce Reports for May 23rd, which is issued by the Department of Commerce: "A recent report of Mr. Howard W. Adams, representative of the Department of Commerce in Germany, states that during the first quarter of the present year the number of departures at the port of Hamburg totaled 1,734 vessels, as compared with 985 for the corresponding period of previous year!" Our Free Trade friends, when discussing Tariff legislation, fail to refer to the competition which we must expect from Germany, but wail about the huge indebtedness owed by the allied govern ments and urge a lowering of the Tariff A Trick Resolution. We have always been in favor of the proposition to put the rates of duty provided for in a new general Tariff bill into effect upon the introduction of such bill, leaving it to the Treasury Department to adjust the differences between the rates as finally provided and those of the bill as introduced. In this way the importer would suffer no injustice, for if he should pay a higher rate than the bill finally imposes, he would be reimbursed by the government. He would suffer no harm, for his goods would be sold on the basis of the higher rate of duty. On the other hand, it would prevent the foreign pro.ducer from taking advantage of the information that higher rates are to be imposed and flooding our markets with his products at the lower prevailing rates. For these reasons we have been inclined to favor the Joint Resolution (H. J. 124) introduced by Representative Longworth, of Ohio. A careful scrutiny of the Resolution, however, discloses the fact that it has every appearance of being a trick resolution. The preamble reads: "To safeguard the revenue, and for other purposes." It looks as if the real purpose of the to be in the nature of a compromise. But Here is the "card:" But "And such emergency clause may also dethe public clare that the safeguarding of revenues requires the immediate taking effect of any other provision or provisions of such bill." That is, the dye licensé embargo advocates, recognizing that it might be impossible to secure the passage of the Emergency Tariff with the provision for extending the dye monopoly for a period of six months, agreed to limiting it to three months, but intended to attempt hav ing an embargo provided for in the per- The dye people have maintained the We do not say and we do not think We have only two things to add. The ous, so that it can normally expand and develop, we favor such Protection as may be warranted to attain these objects, said Tariff rates to be investigated and amended from time to time as changing conditions may warrant, in order that the industry may render fair and reasonable service to domestic consumers, and at the same time compete on equal terms with dyemakers of other countries." It will be noted that there is no word in favor of the infamous license-embargo system, a scheme intended to continue a dye monopoly in this country. The dye interests are entitled to Protection, the same kind of Protection and the same measure of Protection to which other interests are entitled-and no more or different Protection. The True Principle of Protection. We reprint from the Pittsburgh National Glass Budget of May 21st, a portion of its report of a speech delivered by Mr. H. G. Ogden, editor of the Wheeling, W. Va., Intelligencer, at the quarterly meeting of the American Association of Flint and Lime Glass Manufacturers, held at Wheeling on April 18th. It is one of the finest discussions of the purpose and effect of the Protective Tariff that we have ever read. Mr. Ogden said in part: "Now, gentlemen, because most of you are Protectionists, I wish to speak to you of a higher conception of the Protective Tariff principle than many of us are wont to have. We are apt to measure the terms of ProWe are tective legislation in percentages. apt to make comparison of costs solely in dollars. We are apt to forget that the purpose of Protection in this country is not economic, but social and patriotic: that it does not primarily have to do wth the employ ment of labor or the profits of industry, but it does have to do with the quality and the standards of the American electorate: that its prime purpose is not solely to light fires in factories, and start the wheels in workshops. and put mines in operation, but to make of America the ideal home of a free and intelligent people, a land of rich, sturdy. and independent citizenship. Invoking, as you propose to do, the principle of the Protective Tariff for the maintenance of child labor standards, you call into play the highIf we est purposes of the Protective policy. sought only in this country to establish great industries capable of producing on a larger scale than any other country in the world: if we sought only to go out on the high seas and control the markets of distant nations we would not need a Protective Tariff. If, in short, we thought of this country only as a workshop, a mine, or a farm to be exploited to its extremest limit. and to be developed on the most economical basis, we would not need a Protective Tariff. resources; Νο "Between the Atlantic and the Pacific, the lakes and the Gulf. we have the greatest number of people speaking one language, liv ing under one flag, acknowledging one gov ernment, ever gathered together on the face With our great of the earth. with our wonderfully homogeneous population with our unbroken interchange of commodities between sections: with our vast development of improved transportation. simply as a producing organism, the United States outstrips any and all countries. other people can stand against us if we seek to use all of these tremendous advantages, solely for the purpose of developing competitive industry, and absorbing world's markets. We have more than one-half of the developed coal tonnage of the world, and resources beyond computation still untouched. We have more than 60 per cent. of the oil producing capacity of the world; we have more than 70 per cent. of the copper: more than 50 per cent. of the iron ore, and iron and steel production. There is no necessary food that our millions of acres of farm lands. reaching from the tropics to the edge of the frigid zones, cannot grow in abundance. In that mighty area beginning at the foothills of the Alleghenies, and reaching over one thousand miles to the west across the great valleys of the Ohio and the Mississippi. we have an agricultural empire. greater, richer and more productive than any other people have ever enjoyed. We have a self-contained continent, able to produce from our own natural resources and by our own labor, all the things that we need for comfortable living and a high degree of luxury and culture. "This is our heritage, and we believe that this vast wealth of material resources ought to be, and through a wise application of Protection will be, developed and used for the welfare and enrichment of the American people, first, for the regular and constant betterment of their lives; for the creation of richer opportunities for their children and their children's children throughout the ages. Greater wealth in resources means greater production, and greater production ought to mean better wages and better living conditions for every man who works. Experience teaches us that it does mean that, when the principle of Protection is wisely applied, whether it be to the cotton factories of New England, the fruits and vegetables of the farms of Florida, the sugar of Louisiana, the wheat and wool of the West and Northwest. the mines of West Virginia or Pennsylvania, or the iron and steel mills of the Ohio Valley. "Gentlemen, this land of ours is more than a mere workshop. It is more, far more, than a mine or factory. It is more, far more, than a great farm. It is all of these things, but greater and comprehending all of them it is a home for intelligent and self-governing men and women. This is a land in which every child born into the world ought to be born under decent living conditions, in which every boy and girl ought to have some chance to get the rudiments of a useful education, to train themselves in the duties of citizenship; to catch some of the immortal fire that inspired George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, a land not solely dedicated to commercialism, but to the development of citizenship, and that is the high purpose of the Protective Tariff in the United States." A Dye Embargo At Any Cost! A correspondent sends us the following: "For two years we dye people have schemed and fought, plotted and planned, threatened and bribed, held parlor meetings, pantry meetings and public meetings, poured forth floods of eloquence and entreaty, mendacity, moonshine and money, to say nothing of odles of patriotism and war bugaboo, and all for the purpose of securing a dye-licenseembargo-monopoly which shall enable us to hold the dye consumers in the capacious hollow of our combination hand. The question arises, shall all this go for naught? Why, the money which we have expended to secure this monopoly will have been wickedly wasted if we fail to secure this-to usmost important legislation. The dye industry is a key industry-a key which will unlock vast stores of wealth to those of us who have wallowed in the mire and fought the battles for monopoly, all unaided-except for the expenditure of a million or so dollars. We cannot fail-we must not! We must have this law even if we have to storm the halls of Congress and bombard the White House. We must have it, honestly if we can, dishonestly if we must!" We think our correspondent brags too largely of the expenditures. We do not believe the dye people have spent more than five hundred thousand dollars. Chairman Fordney on the Dye Question. No one ever need be in doubt about the stand of Hon. Joseph W. Fordney on the subject of Protection. He is a Protectionist first, last and all the time. He believes that we should protect our own productive industries, so that we may do our own work, keep our own workmen employed and be a self-contained, independent nation, economically as well as politically. His stand on the subject of Protection for the dye industry is exactly what might be expected of him. This is Karl G. Roebling, First Vice President of the American Protective League and President of the John A. Roeblings Sons Company, of Trenton, N. J., died at Spring Lake, N. J., on May 30th, aged 48 years. Mr. Roebling became a member of the board of managers of the Tariff League in January, 1916, and first vice president in 1917. The Roebling concern was one of the founders of the Tariff League. Mr. Roebling was the son of the late Ferdinand W. Roebling and grandson of John A. Roebling, builder of the Brooklyn bridge. The Roeblings have all been staunch Protectionists. They have favored Protection as a national policy, not for their own products alone. If Protection was needed for any of the raw materials used in their mills, they favored Protection for such materials as an aid to national development and prosperity. Among other commendable characteristics, the Roeblings have been noted for their consideration for their employes. It has been with them a principle, rather than a policy. The funeral services of Mr. Roebling took place at Trenton on June 1st. The Tariff League was represented by the following: Joseph R. Grundy, of Pennsylvania; W. B. Maddock and C. Edward Murray, of New Jersey; Chester A. Braman, W. Warren Barbour, and Wilbur F. Wakeman, of New York. A Note of Warning. "This financing of foreign trade might better be described as a movement to aid foreign manufacturers to invade American markets." Representative Edward J. King, of Illinois, member of the Banking and Currency Committee, made the above assertion in a statement today in reference to foreign trade financing. Mr. King opposed the passage of the Edge Act and will lead the fight in the House against the pending amendments to the same. The statement was, in part, as follows: "Since 1914 the balance of trade in our favor has been nineteen and one-half billions of dollars, which means that foreign countries, largely Europe, owe us that amount for goods purchased, or a total of nearly $200 for every man, woman or child in the United States. "Edge corporations propose to sell to Chemically Prepared Patriotism. Much of the support, if not practically all of the support, which the advocates of the dye-embargo scheme have succeeded in securing from the public and from Congress has been because of the belief which has been fostered by the dye manufacturers that it is necessary for us to have in this country an extensive dye industry as a measure of preparedness in modern chemical warfare. We have from time to time exposed the folly of such claim, but it has been kept to the front by the dye propagandists nothwithstanding such expose. We have again and again shown that the claim was false and that it was made for the sole purpose of obtaining a monopoly in the manufacture of chemicals and dyes. Of course the embargo advocates have made every effort to minimize our statements, but one of the directors of the E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. has verified our claims. The gentleman in question is Dr. Charles L. Reese, Chemical Director of the said company. It is reported that he delivered a speech before the Cotton Manufacturers' Association at the Biltmore Hotel, in New York, in May, 1918, in which, among other things he said: "There has also been much talk in the papers with regard to the wonderful advantage Germany had on account of her extensive dye industry, in that she could immediately turn all the great dye plants into munition factories. I do not consider that the presence of the factories themselves was a matter of very great importance to the Germans. It might have been an important factor in a small war, but the requirements for this great war have been such that their mere existence must have been a very small factor. However, the real assistance which Germany obtained from the existence of these factories came from the chemical orAs this ganization which they maintained. war has become, in a sense, a chemical war, these chemical organizations in the German factories have been able to assist the government very materially in its prosecution. Now what were the conditions in this country? There was no dye industry of any great magnitude, but there was a well-ora well-organized explosive industry with ganized chemical organization. I might say that at the beginning of the war the DuPont Company had in the neighborhood of 400 chemists in their employ, many of whom were functioning along the lines above indicated. The first effect of the great war was to call upon this organization to meet problems which seemed to be almost as insolvable as those presented by the dye situation, since many of the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of munitions had been secured from Europe just as the dyes had been. This organization, however, was able to meet the situation in such a short time that the want of these materials did not occasion a day's delay in the production of powder. One of these materials, dipheny lamine, which is an intermediate in the manufacture of dyestuffs, was produced on a large scale and three separate and distinct processes were developed for its production. Dimethylaniline, another dye intermediate, was necessary for the production of tetranitromethylaniline, commonly called tetryl, and had to be produced and a satisfactory process for its production was developed in ample time, as well as for the production of tetryl. These accomplishments gave courage and confidence to the chemists of the DuPont Company, and from the fact that this organization was manufacturing and using all of the basic raw materials necessary for the manufacture of dyes, namely, sulphuric acid, nitric acid. benzol, toluol, xylol, naphthalene, nitrobenzol, aniline and pieric acid, it was perfectly natural to consider the possibility of entering into this great industry." It will hardly be claimed that Dr. Reese was not informed upon the subject which he discussed. We have seen no repudiation of his statement either by his company or by any other chemical or dye company. The statement was true and the propaganda put forth by the dyeembargo propagandists have been false. Dr. Reese did not consider the presence of the German dye factories of any great importance to the Germans. His statement that, at the beginning of the war, "the DuPont Company had in the neighborhood of 400 chemists in their employ," shows just how well-equipped that company would be to supply the materials for chemical warfare in another war. The company was able to meet the government's demands without "a day's delay." How much better is the company equipped at the present time! And there are many other important companies, quite enough in all, to supply all the needs of the government in time of war, to say nothing of the government's own plants. The "preparedness" cry and the "patriotism" cry were only afterthought pretenses. They have been used as catspaws to pull the embargo chestnut out of the fire. The would-be dye monopolists have not a leg to stand on. Their pseudo-patriotism has been exposed by one who is himself a prominent chemist and dye manufacturer. "A Closed Mind in Congress?" In a column article the New York Journal of Commerce of May 26th, criticises Congress for functioning. It is grieved because Congress went ahead and passed the Emergency Tariff Act, although it is undoubtedly true that a majority of the voters of the United States were in favor of some such measure. In view of that fact, it is hardly strange that Congress went ahead and passed the measure, even though it is conceded that it is not perfect. For the most part it was the best that could be done under the circumstances and it will be in force only a short time. It certainly contains some provisions absolutely necessary to the economic welfare of the country. The Journal of Commerce says: "As the session grows older it becomes more and more painfully clear that Congress is suf "The statement made by Senator Penrose as to the lack of information to be derived from his tax hearings is well founded. They have been singularly unproductive even as Congressional hearings. No one will regret the closing of the series from the standpoint of information." In effect, the Journal of Commerce says that it does not object to the closing of the hearings, and, saying so, objects. The trouble is that no good thing can come out of the present Administration, so far as the Journal of Commerce is concerned. In fact, it is anathema maranatha, in the earlier accepted meaning of the term. The Congress is charged by the Constitution with enacting our laws and raising revenue for the conduct of the government. It received from the voters of the country at the last general election the clearest mandate ever delivered to any Congress. The people wanted both the Tariff and the Internal Revenue laws revised and they instructed Congress as to the plan which they wished pursued. Congress is answerable to the people and there is no room for doubt that it aims to give the people the kind of legislation demanded. As this is a representative form of government, all that the people could do was to instruct in general terms, but it is the duty of Congress to formulate the laws. Having done so, the Congress is responsible to the voters, and to say that they are not responsive to the wishes of the voters, so far as they understand those wishes, is to speak foolishly. The Journal of Commerce further says: "Complaint had been made both by many within and by more without the membership of Congress because of the growing practice of enacting what was called 'White House legislation." Mr. Wilson had carried further than perhaps any other President the practice of ordering a draft of an important measure, prepared in one of the executive departments or elsewhere, adopting it personally and transmitting it to Congress with a request that it be passed forthwith. The custom grew to great proportions during the war, but it had taken deep root before ever the European struggle began. That it should be distasteful to Congress was to be expected, and when the country came to understand the scope of the practice it was displeased and anxious. It was the fear of conscientious and conservative men that legislative practice at Washington was moving fast toward an autocratic basis." That is fairly stated, but the Journal adds: "Distaste for the autocracy of 1916 to 1920 does not, however, imply a preference for the bossism of 1909. The Tariff of the latter year was made by a small inner ring or coterie of Congressmen and outside politicians, who ascertained the views of industrial interests and, after matching them against one another to secure the greatest measure of general support, gave the necessary orders and forced the adoption of the various paragraphs. President Taft, who had looked on with hope and confidence from the outset awaiting the verdict of Congress, suddenly found himself in a cul-desac. There was no escape open to him-he must defy the party and its leaders or accept what they had prepared. The indignation of the country was cumulative from the time the Aldrich-Payne Tariff left the Capitol up to the first election of Mr. Wilson." That is not fairly stated. It is not true that the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909 was the result of "bossism." Congress did hear "the views of industrial interests." Whom should they hear if not those interested? The industrial interests of the country comprehend the entire body of the people, and the Congress of 1909 heard the views of all the varied interests. If it had failed to hear such interests it would have failed in its duty, and it did not fail. Such hearings were necessary for the Congress to ascertain facts and conditions and the Tariff of 1909 was the best Tariff which the country has ever had. Under it we enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Every man who wanted work could find it and there was universal employment at remunerative wages. The prices of commodities were not unreasonably high and there was a good market for all domestic products. What more could man ask in the way of economic conditions? But there are those who are never happy unless they can create trouble and, of all trouble-makers, the Free-Traders are the worst. It is true that a feeling of discontent was engendered, but it was not because of the inequities of the Tariff, but because of the wilful lies of FreeTraders. Of all the schedules, Schedule K of the Tariff Act came in for the most uncalled-for abuse and misrepresentation. It was charged that said schedule had been "revised upward," but never was there a blacker falsehood. The only changes in Schedule K were revisions downward. In fact the Schedule K of the Tariff of 1909 was practically the same that had been in effect since 1890. It was a fair, scientific, honest and desirable schedule and the present Congress can do no better than to re-enact it in all essential particulars. It has proved itself fair to the wool-growers, fair to the manufacturers and fair to the buying public. Tariff liars are like the poor-we have them always with us-and they are not idle at the present time. In fact they have never been more virulent than they are now. The purpose and effect of the Tariff is misrepresented and the intent of Congress is misinterpreted. We by no means apotheosize Congress. We think that it makes mistakes, but we believe that its purpose is to legislate for the best interests of the people as a whole. The Journal of Commerce ends its attack on Congress with these words: "The methods are in effect precisely those of the Aldrich-Cannon period. There is no apparent progress toward greater liberalism or toward the restoration of the older powers of Congress." As the United States Government is one of parties, and as the party of Protection comprises the majority of Congress, it is to be expected that Tariff legislation will be on Protective lines, and that the measures passed will receive the practically unanimous support of the majority party. "The older powers of Congress" have not been lost. EMERGENCY TARIFF ACT. H. R. 2435. [As passed by the Congress and Approved by the President on May 27, 1921.] AN ACT imposing temporary duties upon certain agricultural products to meet present emergencies, and to provide revenue; to regulate commerce with foreign countries; to prevent dumping of foreign merchandise on the markets of the United States; to regulate the value of foreign money; and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Title I.-Emergency Tariff. That on and after the day following the passage of this Act, for the period of six months, there shall be levied. collected, and paid upon the following articles, when imported from any foreign country into the United States or into any of its possessions (except the Philippine Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the islands of Guam and Tutuila), the rates of duty which are prescribed by this section, namely: 1. Wheat, 35 cents per bushel. 2. Wheat flour and semolina, 20 per centum ad valorem. 3. Flaxseed, 30 cents per bushel of fifty-six pounds. 4. Corn or maize, 15 cents per bushel of fifty-six pounds. 5. Beans, provided for in paragraph 197 of the Act entitled "An Act to reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," approved October 3, 1913, 2 cents per pound. 6. Peanuts or ground beans, 3 cents per pound. 7. Potatoes, 25 cents per bushel of sixty pounds. 8. Onions, 40 cents per bushel of fifty-seven pounds. 9. Rice, cleaned, 2 cents per pound, except rice cleaned for use in the manufacture of canned foods, on which the rate of duty shall be 1 cent per pound; uncleaned rice, or rice free of the outer hull and still having the inner cuticle on, 1% cents per pound; rice flour, and rice meal, and rice broken which will pass through a number twelve wire sieve of a kind prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound; paddy, or rice having the outer hull on, threefourths of 1 cent per pound. 10. Lemons, 2 cents per pound. 11. Oils: Peanut, 26 cents per gallon, cottonseed, coconut, and soya bean, 20 cents per gallon; olive, 40 cents per gallon in bulk, 50 cents per gallon in containers of less than five gallons. 12. Cattle, 30 per centum ad valorem. 13. Sheep: One year old, or over, $2 per head; less than one year old, $1 per head. 14. Fresh or frozen beef, veal, mutton, lamb, and pork, 2 cents per pound. Meats of all kinds, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for herein, 25 per centum ad val orem. 15. Cattle and sheep and other stock imported for breeding purposes shall be admitted free of duty. 16. Cotton having a staple of one and threeeighths inches or more in length, 7 cents per pound. 17. Manufacturers of which cotton of the kind provided for in paragraph 16 is the component material of chief value, 7 cents per pound, in addition to the rates of duty imposed thereon by existing law. 18. Wool, commonly known as clothing wool, including hair of the camel, angora goat, and alpaca, but not such wools as are commonly known as carpet wools: Unwashed, 15 cents per pound; washed, 30 cents per pound; scoured, 45 cents per pound. Unwashed wools shall be considered such as shall have been shorn from the animal without any cleaning; washed wools shall be considered such as have been washed with water only on the animal's back or on the skin; wools washed in any other manner than on the animal's back or on the skin shall be considered as scoured wool. On wool and hair provided for in this paragraph, which is sorted or increased in value by the rejection of any part of the orig inal fleece, the duty shall be twice the duty to which it would otherwise be subject, but not more than 45 cents per pound. 19. Wool and hair of the kind provided for in paragraph 18, when advanced in any manner or by any process of manufacture beyond the washed or scoured condition, and manufactures of which wool or hair of the kind provided for in paragraph 18 is the component material of chief value, 45 cents per pound in addition to the rates of duty imposed thereon by existing law. 20. Sugars, tank bottoms, sirups of cane juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete and concentrated molasses, testing by the polariscope not above seventy-five degrees, cent one and sixteen one-hundredths of 1 per pound, and for every additional degree shown by the polariscopic test, four onehundredths of 1 cent per pound additional, and fractions of a degree in proportion; molasses testing not above forty degrees, 24 per centum ad valorem; testing above forty degrees and not above fifty-six degrees, 3% cents per gallon; testing above fifty-six degrees, 7 cents per gallon; sugar drainings and sugar sweepings shall be subject to duty as molasses or sugar, as the case may be, according to polariscopic test. 21. Butter, and substitutes therefor, 6 cents per pound. 22. Cheese, and substitutes therefor, 23 per centum ad valorem. 23. Milk, fresh, 2 cents per gallon; cream, 5 cents per gallon. 24. Milk, preserved or condensed, or sterilized by heating or other processes, including weight of immediate coverings, 2 cents per pound; sugar of milk, 5 cents per pound. and 25. Wrapper tobacco filler tobacco when mixed or packed with more than 15 of per centum wrapper tobacco, and all leaf tobacco the product of two countries or dependencies when mixed packed together, if unstemmed, $2.35 per pound; if stemmed, $3 per pound; filler tobacco not specially provided for in this section, if unstemmed, 35 cents per pound; if stemmed, 50 cents per pound. or more or The term "wrapper tobacco" as used in this section means that quality of leaf tobacco which has the requisite color, tex ture, and burn, and is of sufficient size for cigar wrappers, and the term "filler tobacco" means all other leaf tobacco. 26. Apples, 30 cents per bushel. 27. Cherries in a raw state, preserved in brine or otherwise, 3 cents per pound. 28. Olives, in solution, 25 cents per galper lon; olives, not in solution, 3 cents pound. and SEC. 2. The rates of duty imposed by section 1 (except under paragraphs 17 19) in the case of articles on which a rate of duty is imposed by existing law, shall be in lieu of such rate of duty during the six months' period referred to in section 1. SEC. 3. After the expiration of the six months' period referred to in section 1, the rates of duty upon the articles therein enumerated shall be those, if any, imposed thereon by existing law. SEC. 4. The duties imposed by this title shall be levied, collected, and paid on the same basis, in the same manner, and subject to the same provisions of law, including penalties, as the duties imposed by such Act of 1913. SEC. 5. That this title shall be cited as the "Emergency Tariff Act." Title II.-Anti-dumping. Dumping Investigation. Section 201 (a) That whenever the Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter in this Act called the "Secretary") after such investigation as he deems necessary, finds that an industry in the United States is being or is likely to be injured, or is prevented from being established, by reason of the importation into the United States of a class or kind of foreign merchandise, and that merchandise of such class or kind is being sold. or is likely to be sold in the United States or elsewhere at less than its fair value, then he shall make such finding public to the extent he deems necessary, together with a description of the class or kind of merchandise to which it applies in such detail as may be necessary for the guidance of the appraising officers. (b) Whenever, in the case of any imported merchandise of a class or kind as to which the Secretary has not 80 made public a finding, the appraiser or person acting as appraiser has reason to believe or suspect, from the invoice or other papers or from information presented to him, that the purchase price is less, or that the exporter's sales price is less or likely to be less, than the foreign market value (or, in the absence of such value, than the cost of production), he shall forthwith, under regulations pre scribed by the Secretary, notify the Secretary of such fact and withhold his appraisement report to the collector as to such merchandise until the further order of the Secretary, or until the Secretary has made public a finding as provided in subdivision (a) in regard to such merchandise. Special Dumping Duty. Sec. 202. (a) That in the case of all imported merchandise, whether dutiable or free of duty, of a class or kind as to which the Secretary has made public a finding as provided in section 201, and as to which the appraiser or person acting as appraiser has made no appraisement report to the collector before such finding has been so made public, if the purchase price or the exporter's sales price is less than the foreign market value (or, in the absence of such value, than the cost of production) there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in addition to the duties imposed thereon by law, a special dumping duty in an amount equal to such difference. (b) If it is established to the satisfaction of the appraising officers that the amount of such difference between the purchase price and the foreign market value is wholly or partly due to the fact that the wholesale quantities, in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers for exportation to the United States in the ordinary course of trade, are greater than the wholesale quantities in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption (or, if not so sold or offered for sale for home consumption, then for exportation to countries other than the United States), then due allowance shall be made therefor in determining the foreign market value for the purposes of this section. (c) If it is established to the satisfaction of the appraising officers that the amount of such difference between the exporter's sales price and the foreign market value is wholly or partly due to the fact that the wholesale quantities, in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the United States in the ordinary course of trade, are greater than the wholesale quantities in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption (or, if not so sold or offered for sale for home consumption, then for exportation to countries other than the United States), then due allowance shall be made therefor in determining the foreign market value for the purposes of this section. Purchase Price. Sec. 203. That for the purposes of this title, the purchase price of imported merchandise shall be the price at which such merchandise has been purchased or agreed to be purchased, prior to the time of expor tation, by the person by whom or for whose account the merchandise is imported, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, less the amount, if any, included in such price, attributable to any additional costs, charges, and expenses, and United States import duties, incident to bringing the merchandise from the place of shipment in the country of exportation to the place of delivery in the United States; and plus the amount, if not included in such price, of any export tax imposed by the country of exportation on the exportation of the merchandise to the United States; and plus the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the merchandise, to the United States; and plus the amount of any taxes imposed in the country of exportation upon the manufacturer, producer, or seller, in respect to the manufacture, .production or sale of the merchandise, which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the merchandise to the United States. Exporter's Sales Price. Sec. 204. That for the purpose of this title the exporter's sales price of imported merchandise shall be the price at which such merchandise is sold or agreed to be sold in the United States, before or after the time of importation, by or for the account of the exporter, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges, and expenses in |