The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-01-05
Three-COrnered Fight Between Manu-
facturers of Cigars. Importers
and Leaf Growers.
PLANTERS ALMOST RUINED
BY THE LOW TARIFF RATES con-
Tanned IN TIL lis ACT.
Cigar axe Fearful that Mckinley
Bill Duties ON Raw Material Would
Destroy Their Business.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4.-The TOBACCO
schedule of the tariff was threshed over by
the representatives of various tobacco in
terests to-day before the ways and means
| committee with great minuteness. Several
branches of the business were represented,
| the native growers, importers, manufacture
ers using the native goods, using Havana
and those handling the Sumatra product.
Between these classes there was much dis
cord, no two of them being agreed on any
schedule of rates, and contradicting one
another on questions relating to the effects
of the present law as TO rates of labor
and cost of production and manufacture.
The National Association of Tobacco Man
ufacturers was represented by a large del
| egation. with its president, Moses Krahn,
of Cincinnati, for spokesman. The associa-
ton asked for duties of 551s cents a pound
on all imported leaf tobacco. of not more
than 80 cents on all unstemmed tobacco,
and s. a pound. with % per cent. ad va
loren on imported cigars. Under any high
err rates they declared their business would
be ruined. The principal representatives of
the growers were Michael Tobin, of Bald
winsviIle, N. Y. and J. P. Van Duzen. of
Households, n. Y. They asserted that the
native growers had made no money under
TIE NilSoii Dll anu Sht " rates nlSltT
| than those of the Mckinley act. George J..
Smith, of Kingston, n. Y, spoke for the
users of Sumatra tobacco, and E., p.
Gumby, formerly collector of the port of
Tampa, for the Florida manufacturers of
Cuban products. 1t was represented that
! only 3 per cent. of the Havana tobacco
used as wrappers had paid duty as such
under the Wilson law. Others who spoke
vvara. Ey- NJ xyOr EradarioE . CaIroolor oe
Brooklyn; II. S. Frye. of Windsor. Conn.,;
l.. H.. Neudecker, of Baltimore; j. L. Ell
lison, of New York, and George Nicholson,
of st. Paul.
Mr.. TOBIN'S ARGUMENT.
Micha Tobin. of Baldwinsville, n. ",
representing the New York State Tobacco
Growers Association, said the tobacco
growers were badly in need OF relief. They
had expended vast sums i'm warehouses.
ETC.. and until the importation of Sumatra
began had been fairly prosperous. Tobac-
co farms were then worth sl25 an acre.
Such farms were now generally mortgaged
and would not to-day liquidate their in
cumbrances. He did not think it fair that
the Holland syndicate. which employed
coolie labor at II cents d day. should be
allowed to annihilate the great leaf-tobacco
industry in this country. He denied that
American leaf was not suitable for wrap
pers. Sumatra, he said. had no merit. ex-
cept ITS appearance. He complained of the
elastic language in the act of 1884, and said
the schedule in the act of 1890 would be
satisfactory. The consumer, he said. would
not be injured by an adequate duty. but
would get his cigars at the same price at
retail. He said the quality of the Amer
lean wrapper leaf had not improved of re-
cent years, because there had been no in
ducement to growers 10 care for their
leaves. Cuban tobacco ranked first in
quality and Surfatra was decidedly the
worst. He had no doubt. he said. that any
importe' of Sumatra would rather have
Sumatra excluded than smoke a cigar
made wholly of Sumatra.
Why" he was asked.
Because if he smoked ii he would lose
his breakfast" was the reply. Mr.. Tobin
said the growers cared nothing about fill
ers. They were interested primarily in
wrappers.
Chairman Dingley called attention to the
fact that under the reduction of duty of
of 1894 the increase of imports of sumatra
had been over 40 per cent. Moreover. said
Mr.. Dingley, it was a remarkable fact that
cents a pound as soon as the duty was re-
duced. Mr.. Tobin confirmed this, but had
no explanation to Offer
j. >. Van Dusan. of Households. N. Y.
representing the growers of the Chemung
valley. also asked for protection for wrap
per tobacco. He admitted that 81 seemed
an adequate rate, but said it was not a
question of rates, but of protecting our cit
liens from ruinously cheap labor abroad
and saving a great industry from extinc-
ton. He said 10000. 900 pounds of foreign to-
bacco were imported annually. of which
4,00O.000 were wrappers.
Mr.. Schroeder argued that it was inn
possible to discriminate by ocular inspec-
ton between wrapper and filler grades.
except in Sumatra. He said the act of 1890
had proved disappointing TO the domestic
growers. who had made a dismal failure
of an attempt to Introduce American wrap
pers. The reduction of duty in 1894 had
not caused the generalization of the to-
| DacCO growers trade. IL was due to in
creased demand for the finer imported
grades and the enormous increase i'm the
cigarette manufacture. The price of Cuban
tobacco. he said. had been doubled. owing
10 the Generalization produced by the war.
wrapper and filters per pound. That rate,
Mr.. Russell, one of the committeeman. fig
ured would reduce the revenue on tobacco
about So. 600. 900 below 1896.
II. S. Frye. of Windsor. Conn. opposed
the fifty,cents-a-pound rate proposed by
Mr.. Schroeder and said that all the Amer
lean growers desired was a duty which
would allow them to wrap the cheap five.
cent cigars.
DEMANDS OF MANUFACTURERS.
At the afternoon session a delegation ap.
reared representing the National Associa.
ton of Cigar Manufacturers. Moses Kahn
of Cincinnati. spoke first for the manu-.
facturers. The interests of the many, he
said. demanded a uniform duty on to.
bacco. and he asserted that only a small
faction of the tobacco-growing farmers were
represented by those who had spoken a,
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 q
parity. save the government expense. loss
and annoyance in the collection of duty
and yield a revenue equal TO the average
of any year of the last seven. They com.
bated the probable complaint of the grow.
erS that this rate would not give s%uficien,
protection by trying that the high dut,
of 81 a pound on wrappers did not lesser
the use of imported wrappers or increas,
the consumption or permanently increas,
the market value of domestic cigars. Will,
on the other hand the remainder of domes
tic cigar leaf tobacco between 80 per cent
of the total was injuriously affected II
price by the increase in duty. The propose,
duty would give complete protection TO do
nestle filters. which constitute 80 per cent
turers asked also a uniform duty of no
exceeding 81 cents "A pound on all un
stemmed tobacco. contending that thi,
would. at the present average price OF do
nestle leaf tobacco, increase the revenu.
about ) per cent. above the average Of tn.
past seven years The manufacturer
claimed TO employ ten times as many PEG
pie as are employed In raising cigar lea
tobacco in the United States. therefore
they submitted that they were deservin,
OF foremost consideration. They urged tina,
they should not be sacrificed In carryin,
the scheme of protection too far and tina
they could not continue In business unde
higher rates than those they suggested
These duties would be satisfactory TO al
manufacturers, importers OF and dealers IL
leaf tobacco.
The output of cigars in the United Statel