Birmingham state herald., 1897-01-05
ID KEEP OUT INTERLOPERS Tobacco Manufacturers Before
 the Committee. FIVE DOLLARS A POUND Asked to Be Put on sumatra Wrappers and
 Those From Cuba. FLORIDA MANUFACTURERS KICK Claiming this to Be an Unfair Duty-Chair- man McMillin Asks Questions Which
 Show He Is Not Ignorant
 of Tariff Topics.
FLORIDA MANUFACTURERS KICK

Washington, Jan. 4.-Tobacco and the schedule thereof being schedule of the existing tariff law, was the subject of hearing before the committee on ways and means this morning. The National Association of Cigar Manufacturers of the United States was represented by these gentlemen: Moses Krahn, of Cin- cinnan, president Maurice S. Wise, of New York, secretary; Walter A. Shiffer, of New York; George Smith, of King ston, N. Y; Richard T. Gumbert of Phil adelphia; John H. Hernsheim, of New Or leans, and MT. Allen, of Philadelphia The Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of New York, was represented by P. A. Schroeder Joseph F. Cullinan and Her man Verterland, of New York.
 MT. Michael Tobin, of Baldwinsville, N r., was the first speaker. He said he had Lieen appointed by the New York State Tobacco association. The tobacco growers of New York were badly in need of relief at the hands of congress. They had ~'iffered through the importation of Sumatra tobacco to the extent that their production had fallen from 35,000 cases annually to IF, 1000 cases. He thought that return to-the rate of duty imposed by the Mckinley bill, $1.50 per pound, on Sumatra wrapper, would be adequate to protect the domestic producer
 The chairman asked MT. Tobin if he could account for the fact that the for eign price of Sumatra wrappers had gone up in the same proportion as the rate of duty had been reduced-from $2 pound under the Mckinley act to $1.50 under the Wilson act but MT. Tobin could give no reason for it, unless 1t was under the law of supply and demand.
 The chairman, however, intimated his opinion to be that the foreigners had simply taken advantage of the reduction of duty.
 The next witness was MT. J. s. Van dueser, of Horseheads, N. Y., who said that he represented the tobacco growers of the Chemung valley, which comprised a few counties in southern New York and a Jew of the northern counties of Pennsfyvania. He argued that $2 pound on wrappers, while an apparently exor- bitant tax ad valonem, was not really ex- orbftant, when the difference in the cost of labor was taken into consideration. : How is it," MT. McMillin said, after the witness had made a rather long political argument, ''that Sumatra tobacco, which costs $1.20 pound, drives out domestic tobacco, which costs from 10 to 15 cents a pound?"
 Ut is because" the witness answered, "of the foolishness of the American peo- pie in thinking that because thing is imported it is of necessity better" MT. McMillin-You think that is all there is in it?
 The witness-That is all there is in it.
 MT. McMillin-What rate of duty do you suggest?
 The Witness-I don't want at this time to advise the committee. I would like to have a rate of duty which do not think there is courage enough in the party to 1T n1IOt hi
 would like to have a rate of duty which I believe the cigar men. the leaf men, the growers and the smokers would all agree to. It would establish rate of duty which would substantially keep out this Sumatra tobacco, or at least cut down its importation largely. dare not ask this of you, because I do not believe you are in a situation to give 1t to us. (Renewed laughter)
 Subsequently,, in an incidental manner. the witness suggested $6 pound as the rate of duty which he would like to have imposed.
 Frederick A. Schroeder, ex-mayor of Brooklyn, next addressed the committee, as representative of the tobacco board of trade of New York city. He said his firm dealt as largely in domestic tobacco as in foreign tobacco, and he did not wish to be regarded by the committee as representa- tive of the importers of to- bacco The last time he had appeared before the committee, was in 1890, and he had then protested on behalf of the duty on the wrapper leaf. He had said, at that time, that such a rate would not permanently benefit the domestic grower, but would very much discourage and in- jure the business of cigar making. He thought he could prove that what he had said then had come true. He had put in writing the argument which he desired to submit and he proceeded to read it. s He recommended the change of duty on leaf tobacco from @ differential of $1.5O per pound on wrappers and 50 cents a pound on filters, to uniform specific rate on all unstemmed leaf tobacco with a reasonable addition, also specific, not exceeding 40'per cent on stemmed leaf As these two grades could be readily distinguished by ocular inspection there was no valid objection to a discriminat- ing rate The experience of the past six years had amply demonstrated that with 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 the demand for the Sumatra, except by a prohibitiye duty which would be de- structive to the cigar industry. He be- lieved a rate of fifty cents a pound on imported leaf tobacco was all the trade could. stand.
 : The chairman called MT. Schroeders attention to the fact that the foreign price of Sumatra tobacco had largely gone up between 1893, when the duty was $2 a pound. and 1896. when the duty was $1. 50. and asked whether the foreign CTS had taken advantage of the reduction in duty to put up the price in corres- bonding degree.
 MT. Schoeder did not coincide in that view, remarling that the increase In price was larger between 1893 and 1894 -75e a pound-during which period the Mckinley act was in force, than it was between 1894 and 1896. Besides the con- sumption of Sumatra tobacco was not limited to the United States. It was used for cigar wrappers in every country .1 Europe He added that there was TO pers s'You might as we'll" said he, tell woman that calico is just as good