Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Note. This print is for the immediate use of the Committee
and is subject to correction before the final print

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

TARIFF INFORMATION, 1921.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, February 12, 1921.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joseph W. Fordney (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kahn, we will hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIUS KAHN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Mr. KAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have several telegrams and a letter from the Alaska Codfish Co. and the Union Fish Co., both of San Francisco, asking for a duty of 3 cents a pound on codfish. They claim they have severe competition with Japanese cod fishermen and ur'ss they get a duty of 3 cents that they will be put out of business. I ask that I may be permitted to insert in the record the telegrams and the letter I have upon the subject.

(The telegrams and letter referred to follow:)

Hon. JULIUS KAHN,

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 4, 1921.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

Hearings have been arranged before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives now considering a revision of the tariff at which producers of fish and fish products will have opportunity to present their views. Dates fixed by the committee provide for consideration, including fish, February 11, 12, and 14. We are primarily interested in protection of codfish shipped to this country from Japan, which is threatening the destruction of our industry. We request that you kindly communicate with the committee and advocate a tariff of 3 cents per pound on codfish.

Hon. JULIUS KAHN,

ALASKA CODFISH Co.,
UNION FISH Co.,

Both of San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 11, 1921.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Your wire February 7 at hand. Many thanks for your attention. Unable at present to submit additional information than contained with letter February 5. It is obvious we can not compete with Japanese codfish sold in the United States without protection of 3 cents per pound.

Hon. JULIUS KAHN,

ALASKA CODfish Co.

ALASKA CODfish Co.,

San Francisco, Calif., February 5, 1921.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. KAHN: We wired to you as per copy herewith inclosed, which I beg

to confirm.

You are familiar with the menacing situation from Japanese competition in codfish on the Pacific coast and our inability to market our product without serious loss in competition with Japanese importation. Protection by tariff in sufficient amount

3511

[merged small][ocr errors]

to equal Japanese and American cost of production of codfish is at least 3 cents per pound. I realize it is not possible to discriminate against Japan, and a similar duty would apply to all importations to the United States, from Canada, Norway, and Germany. While the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives are now in session considering a revision of the tariff, the matter will probably not come before Congress during the present session, but it is desirable that the committee be informed of our suggestion and suitable recommendations incorporated in the committee's report to the next session. The California producers are confident of your best efforts to assist us.

With kindest regards, I remain,

Yours, very sincerely,

ALFRED GREENEBAUM.

The CHAIRMAN. We will call Mr. Gathright. Mr. Gathright wants to occupy the time of Mr. Othmer and we will yield Mr. Morley's time to Mr. Othmer. So you will be heard, Mr. Gathright, in your own time and that of Mr. Othmer.

STATEMENT OF MR. OWEN GATHRIGHT, CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION, WHOLESALE SADDLERY ASSOCIATION, LOUISVILLE, KY.

Mr. GATHRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the brief which I have to submit is not particularly long, and I will promise you not to read all of it, but to make reference to it. Possibly you gentlemen of the committee do not know that this harness and saddlery industry has been having a fight during the last few years for its very existence by reason of the encroachment of one of the largest industries of the country, the automobile industry, an honorable one and one with which we have no fight. By the irony of fate, in the bill of 1913, harness and saddlery, which for decades and decades had had a duty set opposite it, was put on the free list, while at the same time by the irony of fate the automobile industry was largely protected by a duty of 45 per cent on automobiles costing $2,000 and over, and 30 per cent on those under $2,000.

Only one or two other items in the leather industry were put on the free list, the only ones I recall being shoes. Prior to the war, I might say, the importations of harness and saddlery were mainly from England, to some extent from Canada, but mainly from England, and were of a class mainly that are bought by the well to do, many of whom some people dub Anglomaniacs, who are willing to pay any price offered for a saddle or a bridle or any equipment that bears the mark, "Made in England." Our Government is sorely in need of revenue, as we all know, and we feel that those people should contribute to our sadly depleted treasury. In normal times, if the industry were left open to trade with the world on an equal basis it would hold its own on the general line, although I will say, incidentally during this last war, wonderful progress was made by our competitors, notably England and Canada, England having placed in this country large contracts for equipment, notably artillery harness and her inspectors were placed in all the factories, before we got into this war. They learned a great deal. There was great advancement with those people in the manufacture of this equipment because American methods were far ahead of theirs with respect particularly to the use of up-to-date machinery. So that England was soon able to make all of her own equipment with the assistance of Canada, and not only that, but in addition to that, whereas we

« AnteriorContinuar »