The San Francisco call., 1895-07-17
THE TARIFF ON LUMBER.
Pacific Coast Manufacturers
Agree With the Board
of Appraisers.
A VERY CLOSE DISTINCTION
The Written Conclusions Of the
Meeting to Be Circulated
for Signatures.

Representatives of some thirty lumber
manufacturing firms met at the Office OF
the Pacific Pine Lumber Company, at the
corner of Market and Main streets yester-
day afternoon to take action upon the
recent construction placed upon the Viii
son tariff act by the Collector of the Port
at Ogdensburg, N. Y, and its Endorsement
by John H. Wise, Collector of the Port
here. The sense of the meeting was an IN
dorsement of the decision.
The meeting was presided over by E. M.
Herrick and participated in by such firms
as the following named: Moore q Smith
Lumber Company, Renton, Holmes &
Co., Preston & McKinnon, S. H. Harmon
Lumber Company, George D. Gray, E. b.
Dean & Co., S. E. Slade Lumber Company
and E. K. Wood Lumber Company.
The question at issue arose upon SHIP
ment of Canada flooring, which was as
sessed an ad valorem duty OF 70 per cent
on the ground that the material was
classed as manufacture. The conslgnee
protested, claiming that flooring should
be admitted free under the provisions OF
paragraph. 676 of the Wilson bill, which
admits free of duty "lumber, rough or
dressed" An appeal has been taken to the
Circuit Court of New York and will be
heard on the Z4tn inst,
The fact that pine and spruce clapboards
are specifically mentioned as being free OF
duty lent color to the idea that flooring
and other finished materials should be ad-
mitted free.
The construction of the law by the Col
lector of the Port at Ogdensburg will affect
importers very materially, as they rely
for their margins upon the free admission
of dressed lumber with the rough, but the
"a. 1,,,,, h.a,- 1nr
construction is not sufficient to make i'm
portation profitable.
The following conclusion, reached by the
lumber manufacturers meeting yesterday,
conveys the distinction and difference be-
tween dressed lumber and manufactures,
and the paper will be circulated among the
dealers of the Pacific Coast for signatures
and then be presented to Collector Wise:
On submission OF the question raised by the
recent ruling of the Board of General Apprais-
ers in the matter of the importation of lumber
from Canada at Ogdensburg, n. Y, estab biish-
ing the line OF demarcatlOn between dressed
lumber and manufactures OF wood, submitted
to the following named lumber manufacturers
represented at San Francisco, each and all OF
them unheSitanngly and unequ1Voeally con-
firms the logic of said ruling, and most point
edly contends ana claims that any other con-
struction would be at the greatest variance
with common-sense and the universal interpre-
tation of the lumber trade upon this SUBJ
1ecL:
The contention that the rough lumber is in
itself a manufactured article is not supported
by common-sense, the understanding of the
trade on the tariff law as whole, either Spe-
cifically or by implication, there appearing
throughout distinction between the article
itself and manufactures OF such articles, as in
the case of metals and manufactures of metals,
wool and manufactures OF WOOL as We'll as
wood and the manufactures OF wood, all OF the
same being deemed raw material up TO point
at which their conversion into an article tor
definite use and thereafter belng denomlnateo
manufactures.
Asunder paragraphs 677 and 67S pine clap
boards and spruce clapboards respectively are
placed upon the free list, being manufactures
OF wood as much as flooring, ceiling, Wa1nscot-
ing there is but one inference TO be drawn
from the law itself, that is, had the trainers In
tended to admit free flooring, ceiling, ETC.,
manufactured for definite uses, such articles
would also have been specifically included IN
the free list Similarly to pine and spruce clap
boards. which. on this coast, are DeYeled,
dressed and jointed.
Reference to paragraph 6S4 clearly deter
mines the distinction between unmanufactureo
graph 683 is a specific reference to wood un-
manufactured, and the conclusion IS unaVold-
eble that in the wood schedule under tne 1ree
list no manufactured wood was lntenQeo eX-
cept those items particularly speclhed; ana
taking such conclusion in connection with
paragraph 1S1 under the dutiable list which
specifically states: "That manufactures OF
wood, or of which wood is the component
material or chief value, not specially pro-
vided for in this act shall be assessed at % per
cent ad valorem,' it is to be repeated that any
other ruling than that arrived at by the Board
of General Appraisers is clearly and posllVely
in violation of the tariff law, whether based
upon the language of the act or on the un1Ver-
sal understanding of the lumber trade and for
such reasons such rulings should De unequivo-
cally sustained.