Morning journal and courier., 1893-09-06
THE COMING TARIFF BILL.
Discussing the Duty on Cement at TN G
Committee Hearing.

Discussing the Duty on Cement at the
Committee Hearing.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5.-The ways and
means committee continued its hearings on
the tariff to. day. R. w. Leslie of the
American Cement company, representing
the American cement industry, appeared
in advocacy of the retention of the present
specific duty of eight cents per hundred
pounds on imported cement. He gave five
separate reasons for this request. In sub
stance they were:
l. That the present tariff tax Is a reve-
nue. duty and has increased the amount
realized by the government while decreas-
ing the cost to the consumer.
2 That cement is not raw material, but
essentially labor product, and labor to
the extent of 80 to 90 per cent. of the
selling price of the article entered into that
price.
3. That the industry was not controlled
by trust, but wac closely competed, and
the cement was sold, bulk for bulk, for less
price than ordinary lump lime, unground
and unbarrelled.
4. That the present duty is the same as
that named in the act of 1898, the Randall
bill of 1887, the Mills bill of the same year,
and the senate bill of the same year.
8. That imported cement comes In prac
tically as ballast, the rate being as low aa
ten to fifteen cents per barrel, as against
thirty to forty cents to the same points
from American works.
Mr.. Leslie proceeded to smplify these
points, taking them up in order. Touch
| ing the fret point, that the present duty
was a revenue duty, he showed that prior
| to the passage of the Mckinley act and
| under the sdvalorem duty of 20 per cent,
| the revenue to the government has been
decreased by differentiation and other
means until in 1889 one invoice came to
| the country at a valuation as low as so
cents, the duty being 10 cents. Under the
Mckinley tariff, with q specific duty of
cents per 100 pounds, the government
received 8 cents per barrel, the amount
now collected. At the time the
| Mckinley act took effect the four
leading brands of English cement cost the
importer at Philadelphia from s235 to
50 go, while since the passage of that act
the prices of the same brands had fallen to
s1974 and 80 IS. The decrease had also
| benefited the consumer of the American
Portland cement, which had decreased in
price from SO II In 1890 to 81. SO in 1898.
The imports had also increased from
| !, $40, 1855 barrels prior to the Mckinley
bill to 3 ,9SS, 3l3 since that act was passed
L showing an actual gain TO the government
in revenue of 1926, $50.
Touching the point that cement WAS moi
raw material. nor Its manufacture q loca
industry, Mr.. Leslie asserted that Ii wa
manufactured In twenty three states, north
south, east and west. He also entered init
long description of the manufacture o.
cement, showing at each stage the labo
cost, making a total of 81 per cent. In thi
country. He alec showed that q German
factory with daily payroll of $22 72, en-
ployed seventy women and seventy min
men, while an American work of the sam
number of hands, all male, had q dali
payroll of 1929. 30-a difference In favo
of the German manufacturer of S192 so.
On the third point Mr.. Leslie asserted
: that there was total of eighty -tou
cement works in the United States, anon
: which there existed no combination Q
3 trust, with the exception of the wester
/. district, where one company controlle
several small corporations, but sold the
? | product free of trusts. In conclusion b
{ urged that a specific duty be imposed upo
Q cement of Fights cents per hundred pound
: in barrels and seven cents per hundre
| pounds In bags, bulk or olinker, and
U this way the differentiation and oth'
;. evasions of the customs laws may be q
9 rested.
Replying to question by Mr.. Gear,
: said that the American cement was just
good an article as the imported. The gre
. difficulty was in getting builders and des
. ers to believe 1t. 1t was only in the last tv
years that manufacturers were able
meet the reputation of the foreign articl