have originated or how it could ever have been defended. A tin-plate industry has not been developed in this country simply because the cost of production would be greater here than in Great Britain, and this enhanced cost has not been met by a protective duty, although such a duty was clearly enacted in the tariff act of 1864. The present duty is 1 cent per pound; a revenue duty only. OBJECTIONS TO A PROTECTIVE DUTY ON TIN-PLATES ANSWERED. One of the reasons which has been assigned in defense of the unfriendly legislation referred to, and which has built up a great British industry at the expense of our own country, is that we could not make tin-plates, not having mines of tin ore. This argument, as we have shown, does not rest upon any foundation of facts. The people, and legislators also, have been grossly deceived on this subject by interested importers of British tin-plates. We could coat iron or steel sheets from imported tin as easily as British tin-plate manufacturers now do if we were afforded the opportunity. Another reason which has been assigned is that, the tin-plate industry not now having an existence in this country, to increase the duty on tin plates, and thus start a tin-plate industry in our country, would have the effect of enhancing the cost to consumers of the tin-plates which it would be necessary to import for some time to meet the great demand for them. This argument has been frequently and sufficiently met by reference to the fact that, even granting the assumption of our industrial enemies that the duty is added to the price, the increased cost of tin-plates in consequence of the imposition of a protective duty on this article could not add one-half of a cent to the cost of a tin can, nor more than 1 or 2 cents to the cost of a milk pan, pail, or bucket. On tin cans exported and made from imported tin-plates the law now allows a rebate of 90 per cent. on the duty paid, so that, granting the assumption already referred to, if this provision of law should be continued (and we do not object to it), our exporters of canned fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, etc., could not be injured by a protective duty on the material from which their cans are manufactured. But we hold that the effect of a protective duty on tin-plates would not even slightly enhance the cost of tin-plates to consumers for any considerable length of time. The industry being once established, the effect of competition between home producers would from the start keep the price within reasonable bounds, and would in a short time bring it down to the present quotations. The effect of protective duties in this country has invariably been to reduce prices after the protected industries have been established, and there is no reason known to us why the manufacture of tin-plates should prove to be an exception to this rule. A PROTECTIVE DUTY ON TIN-PLATES WOULD BENEFIT CONSUMERS. With a tin-plate industry once established in this country prices of tin-plates would not only be kept within reasonable bounds, but consumers would be guarantied tin-plates of a better quality than they now frequently receive from Great Britain. Our experience under protective duties has fully demonstrated that one of the certain effects of protecting an industry which has a right to exist on American soil is to put a check upon the adulteration of the products of a competing foreign industry. Tin cans which will not spoil their contents or poison those who partake of them are greatly needed in this country to-day. Tin roofs which will last for more than one or two years before they fall into holes are also greatly needed. The London Statist, for August 18, 1888, in reviewing the tin-plate exports from Great Britain in the first five months of 1888, frankly admitted that "a very large proportion of the tin-plates and sheets exported consisted of a class of goods in the manufacture of which very little or no tin is used-thin iron sheets, mostly used for roofing purposes in cold climates." The proposition to put tin plates in the free list is calculated to benefit importers only, as consumers could have no guaranty that the price of tin plates would thereby be reduced to them even the tenth part of the duty remitted. The proposition is not one, therefore, which consumers should for one moment favorably consider. Any appeals which they may have made to Congress to remit this duty have obviously been made under grave misapprehension. One object of building up home industries is to check the greed of foreign producers by placing domestic products in competition with foreign products, but to place tin plates in the free list would simply confirm British manufacturers of tin plates in their possession of our markets, and confirm their present privilege of charging us what prices they please for their products. Build up a tinplate industry here and foreign tin-plate manufacturers will be compelled to abate a part of their present profits. CONCLUSION. We respectfully ask your committee to consider this whole question carefully and in the light of the facts which we have briefly submitted, and in the light of the crowning consideration that this country is as much entitled to boast a tin-plate industry as a cotton or woolen industry, a silk industry, a lead or zinc industry, or any other industry. This is what our protective policy implies, and the people of this country have just decided that they wish this policy to be continued and its scope extended to embrace avenues of honorable employment which are not now open to them. The present duty on tin plates is solely a revenue duty. It has prevented the establishment of a single tin plate works in the United States, and it has built up in Great Britain, as has been shown, a monopoly of our supply of tin plates. The American people do not desire that this foreign monopoly should be continued. It has already proved to be a great tax on the financial resources of our country. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM B. ALLISON, Chairman Subcommittee on Tariff Revision. THE LABOR REQUIRED TO PRODUCE TIN PLATES. The chief cost of converting iron or steel sheets into tin-plates is in the labor employed in the tinning process. The existing duty of1 cent per pound does not at all approximate the difference between the labor cost in Great Britain and this country; hence the United States makes no tin plates. The following explanation of the labor required in coating iron or steel sheets with tin is taken from the American Cyclopædia : "The plating of sheet-iron, to form so-called tin-plate or sheet tin for domestic utensils, etc., is conducted as follows: The thin sheets of iron are cleaned by immer sion in dilute sulphuric acid and subsequent rubbing with sand and water and washing, after which they are annealed by exposure to cherry heat for twelve hours in castiron boxes tightly closed and luted. Imperfect or seriously oxidized plates are rejected. The accepted ones, which are purplish from a thin external film of oxide, are polished by being passed cold through rolls, then subjected to a second and less prolonged annealing, then sorted and cleansed again, and finally taken to the tinning apparatus. After cleansing they will quickly rust on exposure to air, but may be kept indefinitely without injury if immersed in pure water. The tinning apparatus comprises a series of long rectangular pots or tanks, with a fire under each. These tanks contain the liquid baths into which the plates are to be plunged. "The operation comprises a series of immersions; first into melted grease, in which the plates are left till all moisture has evaporated, then successively into several baths of tin, each of which is purer than the preceding, so that the sheets acquire a coating first of alloy and finally of pure tin; then into melted grease again, in which the superfluous tin runs off, while the liquid grease prevents a too rapid cooling and consequent cracking of the surface. As the tin in the final tin bath becomes fouled by alloyed iron it is removed to the preceding tin bath, and from this in turn to the first bath. After the final grease bath (tallow and palm oil) which anneals the plates, the edging of tin which usually forms around them is removed by dipping into melted cast iron, which melts it, so that a quick blow on the plate causes it to drop off. The plates are at last rubbed with bran and then with sheepskin to remove grease and dirt, sorted, packed in boxes, and marked to indicate size and quality. The sheet iron for tin plates is rolled from the best charcoal or coke bar.” It may be added that there is no mystery in the manufacture of tinplates which the people of this country can not fully acquire. We once made a few tin plates in this country of the best quality. TOBACCO. I am informed that importers of Havana leaf tobacco have been here and objected to the proposed tariff rate on leaf tobacco, because under it a whole importation becomes liable to the 75-cent rate when any portion of a single package shall contain wrapper leaf. They base their ob. jection on the fact that hardly a single importation is made which does not contain some wrapper leaf, though they assert that the importations from Cuba of the wrapper class do not amount to more than 1 per cent. of the leaf tobacco imported from that island for domestic use. We import about 60,000 bales a year. I agree with them when they state it as a fact that hardly an importation from Cuba is made which does not contain some wrapper leaf. But these importers are in serious error as to their assertion in regard to the proportion of wrappers. The importers who are not manufacturers may truly say that of their importations not more than 1 per cent. is of the wrapper class; but the large mass of manufacturers of cigars covered with Havana wrappers import their own leaf tobacco from Cuba, and Key West alone manufactures not less than 85,000,000 of pure Havana cigars, for which not less than 5,000 bales of wrapper leaf is required, and there are about 10,000,000 more of clear Havana cigars manufactured in the North, requiring 600 or 700 bales more. These tobaccos under the present administration are all admitted under the 35-cent rate, though in the crop of Havana of 1887, which is now being worked by the manufacturers, a large part of the wrapper class under the rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury would, if the law were impartially and honestly enforced, be properly subject to the 75-cent rate. The leaf is very thin and excep. tionally light in weight, but the customs inspectors have taken their cue from the discussions at Washington, and they only apply the orders of the Secretary of the Treasury when the product of Sumatra is before them for classification. Now, if the present proposition becomes a law, if it is honestly ad ministered, nearly all imported leaf will become subject to the 75-cent rate. This will be a serious blow to all the manufacturers making clear Havana cigars and will ruin Key West, unless the duty on cigars is very much increased. It will add from $8 to $10 to the cost of material per 1,000 for all clear Havana cigars, and from $5 to $7 per 1,000 to those filled with Cuban leaf. I can not believe that you gentlemen will deliberately enact a law which, if honestly enforced, will ruin Key West and a number of Northern manufacturers; nor can I believe that you will deliberately enact a law which you do not wish to see enforced to the letter and impartially to all. Sumatra or Havana wrapper is now used almost exclusively in all cigars costing at wholesale $30 and over per 1,000, and largely in those costing from $20 to $30 per 1,000; you will not prevent the importation of a pound of Sumatra leaf by making all wrapper leaf subject to the 75-cent rate. It takes but 3 pounds of Sumatra wrappers to cover 1,000 cigars. The average duty paid this year is in excess of 45 cents per pound; 30 cents per pound additional duty would make the wrapper cost only 90 cents more per 1,000, unless the Dutch Syndicate shall deem it politic to take less than the customary 75 per cent. on their stock capital invested in the tobacco interests in Sumatra, and by reducing the price, as they can well afford to, meet the increase in duty. Outside appearance is of the utmost importance in the sale of cigars, and a Sumatra wrapper will cover deficiencies in the quality of the filler. Sumatra has become an absolute necessity for the manufacturer, and even if the jobber, retailer, or smoker shall have to pay $1 more on 1,000 cigars to get what he wants, he will cheerfully pay that dollar before he will accept the coarser American wrapper. The present crop of Sumatra is short in quantity; prices are from 30 to 40 cents higher per pound than last year; still manufacturers buy and consume Sumatra leaf more freely than they did in former years. Only such American leaf as will in a measure approach in appearance the product of Sumatra can be sold for wrapper purposes, and four-fifths of the product of Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, and nineteen-twentieths of the product of Ohio is used for fillers. The heavier tobaccos of these States bring a high price for filler purposes;. higher, indeed, than they brought for wrapper purposes twenty-three years ago, except in Connecticut tobacco. The farmers of Wisconsin receive quite as much for their product today as they did before Sumatra was known; the same may be said of Pennsylvania and of New York and of Ohio. Connecticut and Massachusetts have suffered, not so much from the competition of Sumatra, as from the fact that the land will no longer produce the fine quality and texture of leaf which it formerly yielded. Still there is a growing demand in the country for American wrapper leaf, and the quantity of cigars covered with American wrappers last year was fully double that of those wrapped with Sumatra; this is largely due to the fact that in some of the States exceptionally fine crops were raised. But to get back to the provisions of this bill: I assert without fear of contradiction that this proposed law, if honestly enforced, will or ought to make all leaf tobacco subject to a duty of 75 cents per pound. I am sure that a bill imposing that rate clearly so there can be no question will be more acceptable to all concerned than this bill. You had better make all leaf tobacco subject to 75 cents per pound duty than to leave the matter in the form in which you have it now, then raise your duty on cigars accordingly, and we will try to get along; but do not leave two rates of duty so widely apart on two classes of merchandise, the dividing line of which can not be agreed upon by any three experts you may choose. But there is no need of this very high rate to fully protect the American farmer. A duty of 50 cents per pound for unstemmed, and 55 cents for stemmed tobacco per pound is more than five times what it costs the American farmer to raise a pound of leaf tobacco, and I would recommend that the duty be fixed at that rate. The result will be that the farmer will get a still higher price for his product for filler purposes, and that is about all that the great bulk of the American cigar leaf tobacco is considered fit for in the markets of the world to-day. The cost of Cuban leaf has steadily increased; it is full 50 per cent. higher than it was twenty years ago. The quantity of Havana leaf has in no way kept pace with the increase in the manufacture of cigars. All this has resulted in giving the American grower a fair return for his product; the manufacturers have been driven to use mostly domestic leaf for filler purposes; an additional duty of 15 cents per pound will further reduce the proportion of Cuban leaf used for filler purposes and will increase the consumption of American leaf; but the duty on cigars should be fixed at not less than $5 per pound to offset this taking off of the ad valorem duty and the increase in the duty on leaf from 35 cents to 50 cents. In closing I desire to make one other recommendation which will do much to help the American manufacturers. Section 2804 of the Revised Statutes, requiring a peculiar stamp to be attached to all boxes containing imported cigars, should be repealed and the product of the American manufacturer should be allowed to stand side by side with that of the foreign manufacturer without any discriminating mark being put upon the product of the foreign manufacturer by the Govern ment. BOOKS. COMMUNICATION FROM FRANK BATTLES, Principal of Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind. PHILADELPHIA, January 3, 1889. DEAR SIR: If it meets your approval will you kindly use your influence to have incorporated in the Senate tariff bill a section admitting free of duty books printed in raised characters and appliances for the use of the blind. These manufactures, both in this country and abroad, are of a charitable character and are sold at cost. While under the law those intended for the use of institutions for the blind are now admitted free, there are a large number of individual blind (probably sixty thousand in the United States) who would be benefited by such a concession. As you may know, the blind now have the recognition of the National Government in the subsidy fund of $250,000 set apart for printing for them embossed books. I have written to Senators Cameron and Quay in the same tenor. Very respectfully, yours, Hon. WILLIAM B. ALLISON. FRANK BATTLES, |