Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-01-05

most altogether in cigarette manufac-
| ture. The price of Cuban tobacco, he
said had been doubled owing TO the
decentralization produced by the war.
He proposed a uniform rate Of 90 cents
on wrappers and filters per pound. That
rate, Mr.. Russell, one of the commit
teemen. figured, would reduce the rev.
enue on tobacco about S2,OOO,OOO below
1895.
AT the afternoon session a delegation
! appeared representing the national asso-
! citation of cigar manufacturers. Moses
Krahn. of Cincinnati, spoke first for the
manufacturers. The interests of the many.
| he said. demanded uniform duty on to-
bacco. and he asserted that only small
fraction of the tobacco growing farmers
was represented by those who had spoken
at the morning session.
A uniform specific duty Of 52l2 cents a
pound on all imported leaf tobacco, the
manufacturers urged would put all
| branches of the trade on a parity, save
| the government expense. loss and annoy
ance in the collection of duty. and yield
! a revenue equal TO the average OF any
year of the last seven. They conbatted
the probable complaint of the growers
| that this rate would not give sufficient
protection by urging that the high duty
| of 50 a pound on wrappers did not lessen
the use of imported wrappers or increase
the consumption or permanently increase
the market value of domestic cigars,
while on the other hand. the remainder of
domestic cigars leaf tobacco being 50 per
cent. of the total. was injuriously affect
ed In price by the increase In duty. The
proposed duty would give complete pro-
lection to domestic filters. which constl-
tute 50 per cent. Of the domestic product.
The manufacturers also asked a uniform
/ duty of not exceeding 81 cents a pound on
all unstemmed tobacco, contending that
this would at the present average price
of domestic leaf tobacco be n protection
of 100 per cent. would increase the reve-
nue. about > per cent. of the average of the
past seven years.
The manufacturers claimed TO employ
ten times as many people as are employed
in raising cigar leaf tobacco in the United
States. therefore they submitted that they
were deserving of foremost consideration.
They urged that they should not be sac
rifced in carrying the scheme of protec-
tion too far and that they could not con-
tinue in business under higher rates than
those they suggested. These duties would
be satisfactory TO all manufacturers, inn
porters of and dealers in leaf tobacco.
The output of cigars in the United States
during the past fiscal year was 4099. .lS7 $50,
which was a decrease of Ga. 800 600 from the
preceding year The output of cigarettes
had increased by SS1. .99s. .235. The differ
ence in the duty on wrapper and filler to-
baccos, ii was claimed. had begotten an
unfair competition because at many ports
of entry 95 per cent of unstemmed to-
bacco imported from Cuba had been en-
tered under the 80 cents per pound filler
duty
In regard to imported cigars, the man
ufacturers suggested that they were en-
titled to duty of at least So a pound and
5 per cent. ad valorem. The small guam
tity of cigars imported during the past
fiscal year was not to be taken as a stand
ard because these importations had
greatly increased during the past few
months and were likely to continue TO in
crease. This plan would increase reve-
nues In conclusion the manufacturers
stated that they would be unable to con-
tinue in business with a higher tariff than
the present one and that they would pre-
fer to submit to the present unsatisfac
tory and discriminating rates rather than
face the inevitable havoc which specific
duty exceeding 80 cents pound would
accomplish.
Mr.. Payne endeavored to elicit an adj
mission that the Mckinley law had not
been in force long enough to demonstrate
the effects on the business of a two dollar
a pound rate. but this the president of
the manufacturers would not concede.
Mr. Tawney. of Minnesota, asked il
very high duty on Sumatra would not
drive the small manufacturers out of the
business. to which Mr. Krahn answered
that he could not definitely predict.
Don't you think the duty on cigars
under the law of either 80 or '9i is pretty
stiff protection" asked Mr.. Payne.
Yes" was the answer.
The manufacturers of clear Havana
cigars were represented by +. r. Gumby,
of Tampa. Fla. He expressed surprise at
the statements made by previous speak
ers. From the statements, he said. 1t
appeared that the manufacturers of New
York and Cincinnati knew what the grow
ers of native tobacco wanted better than
did the growers themselves.
From these same statements Il was TO
be inferred that Havana tobacco reaped
all the benefits from the present scheme.
, This was far from the truth Describing
the conditions of the Havana tobacco bus
| mess. he declared that the growing and
| packing of 1t was entirely beyond the
control of the American buyer. Having
been collector Of the port Of Tampa, Mr..
Grumpy said that he was acquainted with
the conditions Of the importations. IT
was true. he said that only about five
per cent. of the Havana tobacco imported
into the United States and used as wrap
pers paid duty as such, because the
manufacturers used much tobacco COM
mercially appraised as filler for wrap
pers II was impossible to tell in import
ing such stock how much of it would be
fit for wrappers. To tax it as wrappers
would stop it's importation entirely. and
would drive the manufacturers Of New
York and Florida to Cuba.
For the manufacturers using Sumatra
wrappers George J. Smith. of New York.
protested against the advantages of the
Havmana tobacco users under the pres
ent law.
In answer to n question. Mr.. Smith said
he did not believe any cigars were made
of American filters and Havana wrappers.
Mr. /. H. Heudecker, OF Baltimore. con-
tended that a duty of 70 cents per pound
would produce more revenue than tie
present rates.
Mr.. J. l. Ellison. OF New York. editor Of
the United States Tobacco Journal. stated
that the cost Of producing Sumatra to-
bacco was 2ilb cents per Mound The