Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-15
THE TARIFF COMMITTEE.
Various Interests Discussed Before II Yes
terday..
fY,v telegraph 10 the Dfspatch.l

tfy telegraph 10 the Dispsich.l
WASHINGTON. January 1i.-When tho
WAYS and Means Committee met this
morning. although il was supposed that
every industry interested in the tarlf had
been heard, half dozen gentlemen were
in waiting to present few aduitionai
facts, and the committee resolved To devote
one more session to hear them. The New
York importers and manufacturers. OF
leather wanted the present duties on their
merchandise retained.
A Sulphuric-acid maker wanted iron
pyrltes placed on the free list.
James Campbell, of Pittsburgh. repre-
senting window-glass makers, asked Tor
restoration of the tarih of 1888.
Alexander Hammett, of Pittsburgh. Sc
conded the request, and also asked that
n duty be charged upon the weight OF the
glass and not upon the box. The addi-
tional duty asked for amounted to one
eighth OF cent per pound or 10 per cent.
al rdiorern.
James VI. Gere. of Syracuse, New York,
appeared by request of some North Caro-
linians in behalf Of the producers of stove
mica. He spoke Of the extent OF the indus,
try in North Carolina in the past, aud
quoted figures 10 show how it bad de-
creased III importance IN the last few
years owing 10 the competition of India.
He asked for a specific duty--a moderate
duty of fifty cents per pound on all mica
and mica-waste.
Mr.. Mcmillan said that the witness asked
for duty of $40 per ton, and be sought to
find out what the witness paid for 10 but
could not get a specific answer, the witness
saving that the quality of mica varied so
much that there was no average price.
Mr. Britton Richardson, a silk maker of
New Jersey, wanted the committee To take
action that would result in duty OF 80
per cent. instead OF 20 per cent. being im-
posed upon silk hat trimmings. tie COM
planned of tho recent decision OF the Su-
preme Court declaring silk ribbons used
exclusively for bat trimmings 10 be dutia-
ble at 20 per cent. He was satisfied that 1t
was the intention 20 make the duty 80 per
cent. on all kinds of silk IN the tgrif act of
1888. and now wanted the wording made
so explicit that there could be no question
rs TO the duty. The condition of the silk
industry in this country was perilous III
the extreme.
State-Senator John W. Griggs, of New
Jersey. explained that that trouble came
from the omission of the word ribbons
in the silk schedule and the word yegeta-
ble in the hat-trimmings schedule. A TO
the effect of the courts decision. he said ::
The annual product Of the silk manutac-
turers of this country il sixty million.
About one third Of this product IS silk RIB
bons. Many large concerns are devoted
exclusively to silk-ribbon manufacture
Their stocks are now ready for the
spring trade They have been manu-
featured ut high rates for raw silk
aud the present rate of wages. The per-
centage of profit is too small 10 stand the
difference in duty. Under this decision OF
the Court the country will be flooded with
silk ribbons and the American product
will have 10 be forced upon the market at
prices that Will entail great loss. The six
trade regards this decision ~ the most Sc
rious assault ever sustained by IL. The
sllk-men AK that this misconstructlon Of
the law be remeded. They are now threat
ened with disaster aud ruin.
Mr. William Strange. silk manuiac-
turer Of Paterson. n. j.. supported the
statements Of the previous witnesses.
Chairman Mckinley said that he would
call the attention of the committee to the
matter, and ii its consent was secured
would take up this proposition imnedl-
ately "a a separate question from the tarin
bill and endeayor To have the bill reported
to the House ut once.