bales, will have to be weighed under this law in a single package and each package marked with the weight, it can not be done without expense. No matter how unjust the law may be, people will in time accommodate themselves to its requirements. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. That is not new in this law. Mr. FRANC. It never has been enforced. The district attorney lurks behind our office doors. We do not want to evade the customs laws and regulations. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. You think it is unnecessary. Do you know why it was thought necessary that the marks should indicate, not only the country of origin, but the quantity? Mr. FRANC. I think I have had a chance to find out the reason, in one line of trade, totally foreign to ours. I was informed that the spool-cotton trade was seriously interfered with by fraudulent importations from the other side, where people had imported cases full of spool cotton marked and numbered as having two hundred yards each. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Whereas they had only 120 or 130 yards. Mr. FRANC. As the case might be. That has been told to me as the origin of the law. That particular industry has a perfect right to complain of the frauds practiced upon it and the public; but we do not see any reason why the drug trade should be burdened with an enormous trouble and expense. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Why do not your packages correctly indicate the weight as they are received? The weight is marked on them. Mr. FRANC. In a good many cases it is not. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. It might be. Is there any inconvenience about the weight being marked on the packages? Mr. FRANC. Not in ordinary cases; but a good many cases contain sundry articles. We had an invoice the other day where the case contained three articles. It contained packages of all sorts, sizes, and weights. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. The contents might be described by weight or by measure. Mr. FRANC. Take the identical importation we had. There were pills, and we had liquids, and we had quinine, all in the same case. STATEMENT OF J. H. STALLMAN. Mr. STALLMAN. If you will permit me, I will illustrate a case in point. There is an importing firm which received 350 bales of coriander seed. It is a recent case. The goods were received into their own store. They shipped part of the goods, bleached part of them, and after awhile, before the ten days were up, they received notice to deliver the 350 bales to the appraisers. They could not possibly do it. It was a physical impossibility. They appealed to Washington, to the Secretary of the Treasury, and he referred the matter back to the appraisers here. One of the firm was called in to explain. There the matter stands now, and it has not been decided. 8879- -7 STATEMENT OF W. F. McCONNELL. Mr. MCCONNELL. The committee of the drug-trade section of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation has prepared a report on this subject, which we desire to submit. The report referred to is as follows: NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE AND TRANSPORTATION, Hon. ORVILLE H. PLATT, Chairman Subcommittee of Finance Committee, SIR: At the regular monthly meeting of the drug-trade section of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation held this day the accompanying report was unanimously adopted, and the committee of importers of drugs and chemicals were instructed to personally present the same to your committee. Very respectfully, yours, Attest: J. H. STALLMAN, Chairman. WM. JOY SCHIEFFELIN, Secretary. NEW YORK, November 17, 1898. To the Drug-Trade Section of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation: Your committee of importers of drugs and chemicals respectfully direct your attention to section 8 of the tariff act, as follows: That all articles of foreign manufacture, such as are usually or ordinarily marked, stamped, branded, or labeled, and all packages containing such or other imported articles, shall, respectively, be plainly marked, stamped, branded, or labeled in legible English words, in a conspicuous place, so as to indicate the country of their origin and the quantity of their contents, and until so marked, stamped, branded, or labeled they shall not be delivered to the importer, etc. We especially call your attention to the language of the section that provides in addition to the marking, stamping, or branding upon all packages "the country of their origin," the requirement that "the quantity of their contents" shall also be marked upon each article. Until recently the requirements of the statute relating to the place of manufacture only have been carried out by the foreign purchasers, and the clause relating to the quantity of contents has been passed over. Recently, however, this provision has been enforced by the customs authorities on the ground that laws are made to be observed. Your committee is informed that the clause as to quantity of contents was incorporated in the tariff act at the solicitation of American manufacturers of spool cotton for the purpose of stopping the practice of European manufacturers representing that the foreign spools contained 200 yards when they did actually contain only about 125 to 150 yards. This enabled the European manufacturer to compete and undersell the American manufacturer, but it is no justification for the imposition of hardships upon the great importing interest of the United States, comprehending as it does many and varied lines of business. It would be particularly severe upon the drug trade with all of its ramifications if every imported package should have to be marked with the quantity of its contents, especially such articles as are imported in quantities of 500 or 1,000 packages or more. Very many of the goods thus imported are weighed in drafts of five or ten packages, and it would add materially to the cost of the goods if this almost universal custom should be replaced by one requiring that the weight of each package should be specifically marked or branded thereon by the foreign shipper, and endless annoyance and expense would ensue if that shipper or his clerk failed to comply with the regulation under consideration. Such neglect on the part of the foreigner might result in the holding up of the shipment, carting to the public stores, and the necessary marking under the supervision of customs officials, with the result that would be disastrous to the American importer, particularly in the case of cheaper grades of goods, which can not bear the charges for frequent handling. Another unfortunate feature of the provision is that the Government is the sole arbiter as to what may constitute a proper mark, stamp, brand, or label stating the quality of contents. Many technical questions have arisen in the several branches of business regarding this matter with relation to the marking of the country of origin, and now to require an additional marking of quantity of contents enhances the possibility and probability of friction between the importer and the Government. If the law recognized and permitted the importer to appeal from the arbitrary rulings of the Government officials in the construction of this provision it might result in the establishment by the courts of rules that would soon become universal in each line of trade; but such appeal to the courts is not recognized or permitted under this law, and therefore the importer is wholly at the mercy of the customs authorities. A more liberal phraseology of the law, defining what is meant by quantity of contents, would nullify many of the objectionable features herein referred to. While your committee are particularly interested in the drug trade and its allied branches, a moment's reflection will show the importance of this matter in even a greater degree to other lines of business where it is a common practice, we are informed, to ship cases of mixed goods. A literal enforcement of the law in such lines means embarrassment, harassing, expensive, and disagreeable complications. If there is any good reason for the existence of such a provision in the tariff law other than that suggested by the spool-cotton manufacturers, your committee are at a loss to comprehend it. On the contrary, we are forced to believe, after reflection and consideration, that the provision is entirely unnecessary and burdensome, of no value to the Government, because it applies to free as well as dutiable merchandise. It is apparent, therefore, that everybody, whether the goods come into this country under the free list or on the dutiable list, are apt to, through no fault of their own, be brought into conflict with customs officials. One feature of this condition must not be overlooked. Many articles are sold in this country through brokers who have knowledge of the fact that certain goods are in the market abroad or who represent foreign houses in this country. These brokers are the parties with whom the American merchant directly deals, and it is upon the order of this broker that the goods are shipped to the buyer in the United States. It is, therefore, unreasonable and unjust that the American merchant or buyer should be handicapped or annoyed in any way through the failure of the foreigner, whom he does not know, to comply with a technical provision of this character in the law, particularly when so many contracts involving large sums of money are made with specific time limitations. The determination of the customs authorities to enforce the clause in the law under consideration is of such recent date that few of the American merchants have as yet begun to feel its full effect, although it has been in the law for several years past. It is a matter, however, that should be met at once, and your committee would therefore recommend that the drug-trade section bring the subject before the subcommittee of the United States Senate Finance Committee, now sitting in this city, and recommend through them, or in such other way as may be desirable, an amendment to the law either striking out the words "or other imported articles," or by providing that the quantity of contents shall be more clearly defined in the law. Respectfully submitted. THE COMMITTEE OF IMPORTERS A true copy. Attest: OF DRUGS AND CHEMICALS, DRUG-TRADE SECTION. J. H. STALLMAN, Chairman. STATEMENT OF W. LOAVIA & CO. NEW YORK, November 18, 1898. The SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, City. GENTLEMEN: In response to your note of the 16th instant, inviting us to attend a meeting re, improvement of the customs administrative act, we are sorry to say that, on account of business pressure, we are unable to attend; but take this opportunity to call your attention to the injustice to which we are subjected on account of the provision of the present law which prohibits our adding to make market value on invoices of consigned goods. To illustrate: On some recent importation of hides, on which the valuation was made in accordance with the suggestion of the board of appraisers after due deliberation on the subject about a year ago, and on arrival of these hides so valued, the valuation was raised some 50 per cent without warning, which made us liable to a heavy penalty and prevented our entering other hides which arrived subsequently. Owing to the before-mentioned provision, we were unable to add to make market value, and therefore these other consignments, without our being able to prevent it, go as unclaimed hides into general order stores, thereby involving additional expenses. There are, no doubt, other points which would be worth while discussing, and we hope that some other importers in our case will bring them before your attention. We remain, gentlemen, yours, truly, W. LOAVZA & Co. P. L. WHITAKER. STATEMENT OF KUNHARDT & CO. NEW YORK, November 16, 1898. SENATE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE, New York. GENTLEMEN: We take the liberty to place before your committee the following facts: Our business is that of export commission merchants with West Indian and South American countries. In exchange for products we send from here we receive products of those countries, viz, coffee, skins, hides, etc. Since the enactment of the Dingley tariff bill the regular course of our business transactions with those countries has been greatly disturbed through the workings of the duty imposed on hides and the administrative laws in connection therewith. Coffee, skins, and free goods are not affected, but hides, which are a large means of exchange, are subjected to many complications and difficulties and imposition of penalties, large and small, which it is utterly impossible for us to avoid. These difficulties have become so pronounced that they threaten not only to divert from the United States that article of exchange "hides," but disadvantageously affect also the export and import business in other lines. The manner in which the administrative act works is to treat reputable concerns which have spent a lifetime in upbuilding our export trade like thieves, and give them no recourse in cases where differences arise, even when the facts show perfectly plain there is no intention to avoid the full payment of duties or circumvent the law in any other way. Our first experience with this administrative act was in making, at the demand of the collector of customs at this port, certain deductions of charges which duly appear in our consular invoice, and later on the appraisers returned these same charges as dutiable. This variance between the collector of customs and the appraisers' requirements imposed penalties from 1 to 14 per cent, which we were compelled to pay, notwithstanding our appeal to Washington. It is impossible for our clients in South America to understand such charges, and consequently they are irritated to such an extent as to, in some cases, withdraw their entire business from us. In our dealings with Colombia, for instance, where we do an extensive business and from which country hides are exported to the United States in large numbers, it is likely that this important business will be withdrawn from us, due to the fact that we can not give our clients instructions definite enough to invoice their hides properly. In fact, in Colombia hides are bartered and seldom if ever are offered for sale in shipping markets. Consequently they can not be invoiced at a market price, and the exchange fluctuating there from 30 to 40 per cent within a week makes such variations of cost that the appraisers have latterly advanced invoices as much as 40 to 50 per cent, and seldom invoices come through without a small penalty, which falls on our shippers. (1) For your information we beg to state that neither our shippers nor we have any interest whatever in reducing the amount of duties paid on our importations of hides. Our hides brought here are sold in bond at the net price, and whatever sum is paid for duties is refunded to us by the buyers; hence we have no interest in the amount paid. (2) From what we learn the Government's direct interest in the |