The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-01-04

SHROUDED IN SMOKE,
Dingley Committee Hears
Wonderful Things About
Tobacco's Need of
Protection.
SIX DOLLARS A POUND DUTY
Some Of Our Native Tobacco "Will
Do as a DeceiYer"MchIillln
Prods the Sharks.
SIX DOLLARS A POUND DUTY


ule L of the existing tariff law, was the
subject of the hearing before the Com
nittee on Ways and Means this morning.
The National Association of Cigar Man
ufaeturers of the United States was rep
resented by these gentlemen: Moses
krahn. of Cincinnati, President: Maurice
s. Wise, of New York. Secretary; Walter
A. Shifer of New York; George Smith,
of Kingston, N. Y; Richard T. Cum
bert, of Philadelphia; John Hernesheim,
of New Orleans, and Mr.. Allen, of Phila-
deiphia. The Leaf Tobacco Board of
Trade of New York was represented by
F. A Schroeder. 5. BLUR, Joseph F. Gull
Imam and Herman Vetterlein, all of New
York.
Mr.. Michael Tobin, of Baldwinsville n.
T., was the first speaker. He said that
he had been appointed by the New York
State Tobacco Association. The tobacco
growers of New York State were badly
in need of relief at the hands of Con-
gress- The, character of their industry
was such that taxes could easily be col
iected on their tobacco. They could not
eyade their share of the taxes For
years, until Sumatra tobacco gained a
foothold in the United States, the to-
bacco growers had been reasonably pros
porous, Up to within a few years the
tobacco section of New York grew some
5000 cases of tobacco, annually, while
now the production had fallen to about
1000 cases. That depressed state of af-
fairs existed, he understood in nearly
every tobacco growing section of the
country It was not fair, he argued. that
their dangerous rival. the Holland Syn
dicate, employing labor at 10 or Il cents
a day, should be allowed to annihilate
and ruin domestic Industry of such
magnitude
He claimed that leaf tobacco could be
grown in this country and that the cigar
business was never so prosperous as
when the domestic and the Havana leaf
was used. There was no merit in the
sumatra tobacco except that it enabled
the cigar manufacturers to know ex-
actiy how many cigars a certain guam
tity should produce 1t increased the
lustre of the cigars and had created a
fad in this country
Mr.. Tobin was pressed by members of
the committee to state what rate of
duty he desired to have imposed on wrap
pers; but he pleaded that he was not
prepared to make such statement and
as his opinion, however that the rate
or y pound on wrappers; ss fixed in
the Mckinley act, would not be ADEQUATE
tq protect the domestic growers of to-
The Chairman asked Mr. Tobin if he
could account for the fact that the
foreign price of Sumatra wrappers had
gone up in the same proportion as the
rate of duty had been reduced-from 81
pound under the Mckinley act to $15o
under the Wilson act-but 1fr. Tobin
could give no reason for it unless it was
under the law of supply and demand. The
Chairman, however, intimated his opin-
Ion to be that the foreigner had simply
taken advantage of the reduction of the
duty
The next witness was Mr.. ]. s. Van
deuser, of Households. N. z, who said
mat he represented the tobacco growers
of the Chemung Valley, which comprised
few counties in Northern New York
and few of the northern counties of
Pennsylvania. He argued that s2
pound on wrappers, while an apparently
exorbitant tax ad valoren was really
not exorbitant when the difference in the
cost Of labor was taken into considera-
Hoy Is ft?D Mr.. McMillin nem
TennJ asked. after the witness had made
rather long political argument, that
Suulatra tobacco which costs s1.20 a
pound. drives out domestic tobacco which
costs from 10 to is cents a pound?',
III Is because" the witness answered,
-of the foolishness of the American peo-
Imported it is of necessity better
there IS in it?'s
The Witness THAT is all there is in
Mr. McMllIin-.What rate Of duty do
you suggest?'
The Witness-"I do not want at this
time to advise the committee. I would
like to have rate of duty which I do
not think there is courage enough in the
party to impose. Oaughter.) I would
like to have a rate of duty which I be-
.lieve the cigar men, the leaf men, the
growers and the smokers would all
agree to.
II would have rate of duty which
tobacco. or at least cut down its impor-
tation largely. I dare not ask this of you
because 1 do not believe you are in a
situation to give 1T to u.s. tRenewed
Subsequently in an incidental manner
poanS tas Ttnsss a the ras q daty sy @h aGs5
Mr. Fredriclx A. Schroeder. ex-Mayor
Board of Trade of New York City. He
said his firm dealt as largely in domestic
did not wish to be regarded by the COM
naittee as representative of the impor-
ters OF tobacco. The last time he had
1880 and he had then protested on behalf
Of the importers against a differential
rsts rate ct , duty ont on the wrapper leaf He had
not permanently benefit the domestic
grower. but would very much disarrauge
and lnJure the business of cigar making
He thought he could prove that what ne
kad said then had come true. He had put In
writing the argument which he desired to
submit and he proceeded to read it. He
recommended the change of duty on leaf
tobacco from a. differential of $150 per
pound on wrappers and 35 cents a pound
on filters to uniform specific rate on
all unstemmed leaf tobacco with a rea-
sonable addition, also specific. not ex-
ceeding forty per cent on stemmed leaf 4
As these two grades could be readily dis
ffnguished by ocular inspection there was
no valid objection to a discriminating
rate. The experience Of the past six
the most careful efforts the present law
could not be justly administered. The
discrimination was no longer demanded
by the large mass of farmers, who had
discovered that they could not overcome
I the demand for the Sumatra except by a
7prohibitive duty which would be destruc-
tive to the cigar industry. He believed
rate of fifty cents a pound on imported
leaf tobacco was all the trade could
stand.
The Chairman called Mr.. Schroeder's
attention to the fact that the foreign
price of Sumatra tobacco had largely
81 a pound, and 1896, when the duty was
ss1 .50,@and asked whether the foreigners
had taken advantage of the reduction In
]d1aty to put up the price In correspond
Mr. Schroeder did not coincide in that
view, reraarking that the increase in
SrrtceI was larger between 1893 and 1871