Mr. PENNOCK. No, sir; not to the interior of the country. · Mr. BOUTELL. If you secure the duty for which you are asking, in the manufacture of coal-tar products, as contemplated, would not the basic substance that Mr. Queeny was speaking of be a part of your process? Mr. PENNOCK. It would naturally result in that process in the years to come. That is a complicated chemical which requires refined manufacture and would come from these intermediate products. Mr. BOUTELL. The reason given by him why the basic substances were not produced was because there was none of these coal-tar products manufactured. If we begin the manufacture which you contemplate then the substances can be produced. Mr. PENNOCK. Certainly. STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK W. BROOKS, REPRESENTING ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL COMPANY, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. BROOKS. We have filed a brief with the clerk of the committee which, I think, presents the subject as fully as we desire to do, and we desire to make no further presentation of the matter at this time, with the committee's permission. The statement submitted by Mr. Brooks follows: Hon. SERENO PAYNE, THE ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL Co., Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: We are engaged in the manufacture of colors, enamels, fluxes, and similar articles used in the glass, enamel ware, and similar industries, with an office at No. 100 William street, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, and with works at Perth Amboy, in the State of New Jersey, and have been engaged in this occupation for many years past. We address you with a view of making more certain the protection to which as American manufacturers we feel that we are entitled. You will find under paragraph 54 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, a provision for vermilion red and other colors not containing quicksilver, but made of lead or containing lead, 5 cents per pound, and which undoubtedly was intended to cover vermilion red and other similar colors, but which it is now contended in the Federal courts should apply to the ceramic colors which we make and which are different in every way from vermilion red and colors of that kind. It is a matter of almost common knowledge that vermilion red and such colors as are ordinarily applied with a brush and which contain a drier or something of that kind are completed as soon as applied, while ceramic colors have to be fired in order to bring out the necessary shade and effect, and moreover require the addition of a flux to them before they can be applied and fired. An inspection of paragraph 58 of this tariff act of 1897 shows a provision for colors which evidently was intended by Congress to impose a duty of 30 per cent ou imported goods brought in to compete with ours, but in consequence of some litigation during the past few years there is some doubt as to whether goods such as we make should pay this duty of 30 per cent mentioned in paragraph 58 or whether they can come in under the provision of 5 cents per pound under paragraph 54. This specific duty is very well when applied to the ordinary colors, such as imitations of genuine vermilion, called vermilionetts, where lead is the main base and colored with coal-tar dyes, but it is not sufficient protection when applied to the kind of colors which we make, made from the more expensive metallic oxides like selenium and uranium, and certain effects are accomplished by the use of the precious metals-silver, gold, and platinum— and will average about $5 to $6 per pound. It would therefore seem that it was not the intention of Congress to impose such low duties as those mentioned in paragraph 54 on the class of articles made by us, and it is with the object of making more specific in the new tariff act a duty to be applied to such goods as we manufacture that we have addressed this communication to you. It may be further added that the goods which we manufacture are the raw materials used by the domestic manufacturers of earthenware, china and glassware, and it is greatly to their interest to have domestic manufacturers of such raw materials whose product can compete with that of the foreign manufacturers, in order that the domestic product may keep down an unreasonable price for the foreign product. To settle any possible controversy as to the duty on the ceramic colors, etc., by proper legislation in the next tariff act, we ask that this be given careful consideration. Paragraph 54 is limited to colors which are "dry or ground in oil or water," and such colors are manifestly of a very different class from those in which we are interested. Such colors as vermilion red are applied with a brush to cover large surfaces, and with no idea of carrying out any artistic design or decoration. Their price indicates that they are composed of ordinary materials, and the manner in which they are applied indicates the class to which they belong. Ceramic colors in which we are interested are principally metallic oxides containing soft fluxes, which have to be fired when applied to the materials on which they are used, in order to bring out the color, and when melted become fixed. The degree of heat which is applied in such cases ranges from 900° to 3,000° F., and the particular shade desired is to a great extent dependent upon the temperature applied, and in some cases the duration of the fusing process. The fluxes used are either borates, silicates of soda, potash of lead. Lead as a flux is used in some instances, where coloring is accomplished by the use of the precious metals, while the greater part of the enamel colors are borates or silicates. It will thus be seen that the ceramic colors are a series by themselves and are very different in every way from common paints. For these reasons there should be a specific provision in the tariff act to be enacted for these ceramic colors, and we therefore suggest that the following paragraph be enacted to determine the rate of duty to be applied to such articles when imported, namely: "Colors, color bodies, stains, glazes, enamels, and fluxes, used or suitable to be used in the manufacture of ceramic, enameled, and glass articles, 30 per cent ad valorem." It would seem from the light of experience that a tariff provision such as that suggested would not only remove all doubt as to the rate of duty to be applied to these manufactures in which we are interested, but would give to us, as domestic manufacturers, the protection to which we believe we are entitled and which we have reason to think your committee will cheerfully award to us. We are not asking for anything more than the 30 per cent which it was intended we should have under the present act and which is absolutely necessary to protect us against the foreign competition and to encourage this home industry. We believe our claim is a just one and should receive very favorable consideration at your hands. Respectfully submitted. THE ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO. STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY HOWARD, CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, BOSTON, MASS. The CHAIRMAN. You represent an organization of chemists? Mr. HOWARD. Yes, sir. I have a card which gives the names of the members of the association: Members of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the United States. The Ammonia Company, Baltimore Chrome Works, Barrett Manufacturing Company, Baugh & Sons Company, Chicago Chemical Company, Cochrane Chemical Company, Columbia Chem ical Company, Chas. Cooper & Co., Davidson Chemical Company, General Chemical Company, Grasselli Chemical Company, Hudson River Aniline Color Works, Harrison Bros. & Co., Martin Kalbfleisch Chemical Company, Lazaretto Guano Company, Charles Lennig & Co., W. J. Matheson & Co., Merrimac Chemical Company, Jas. L. Morgan & Co., Nichols Chemical Company, Pennsylvania Salt Company, Chas. Pfizer & Co., Powers & Weightman, Rosengarten & Sons, Rumford Chemical Works, T. P. Shepherd & Co., Solvay Process Company, Tartar Chemical Company, A. L. Thomsen, Malinckrodt Chemical Company, New York Quinine and Chemical Works, The Kalion Chemical Company, B. P. Clapp Ammonia Company, Mutual Chemical Company, United Zinc and Chemical Company, Passaic Chemical Company. The CHAIRMAN. You have been requested to come here and present the matter for them? Mr. HOWARD. This matter has not been brought up before the association. We did not know that this hearing was coming on as early as this, and we are not prepared to present any argument now, but will present a brief before the 4th of December, which, I understand, is the time limit. The CHAIRMAN. The committee desires to have the hearings all closed by that time so that they can print the results and have them for the consideration of the committee. Mr. HOWARD. I am not prepared to make any oral argument to-day. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. CHAPLIN. I would like to ask if we may have permission to file a further statement giving certain details? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Please be as prompt as you can, with the understanding that all statements must be filed before the close of the hearings. I want to say that the more promptly the statements are filed the more thoroughly the committee will examine them because they will have more time. STATEMENT OF DR. A. SPRINGER, REPRESENTING ALEX FRIES & BRO., CINCINNATI, OHIO. Mr. SPRINGER. I will only take up a few minutes of your time. I come here to request that the existing duties on ethers, esters, essences, essential oils, flavors, sugar, coloring, caramel, and acids be not changed. We here in the United States, unless protected by a tariff, can not compete with foreign manufacturers of these articles for two most powerful reasons. First, on alcohol which enters so largely into the manufacture of the ethers, extracts, flavors, etc., both as part and solvent, there is imposed in this country an enormous tax, far in excess of those existing in other countries. The second reason, and perhaps the more cogent one, is the difference in wages paid to employees. In the chemical manufacturing line, notwithstanding the dangerous character thereof, more than in any other, it is possible to obtain all the employees required absolutely free from all remuneration. Graduates from universities, technical and secondary schools, willingly offer their services as apprentices 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. 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, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 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 |