The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-05

pounds. The difference in the duty on
wrapper and filler tobacco, 1t Is claimed.
had begotten an unfair competition be-
cause at many ports of entry 80 per cent
Of unsteamed tobacco imported from Cuba
had been entered under the 81 cent l,rr
pound filler duty.
In regard to imported cigars the manu-
facturers suggested that they were en-
titled to duty OF at least So a pound and
30 FER cent ad valorem. The small GUAM
thy OF cigars imported during the ,scal
year was to be known as standard be-
cause these importations had greatly in
creased the past few months and were
likely to continue to increase. This plan
would increase revenues. in conclusion
the manufacturers stated that they would
be unable to continue In business with
hisher tarln than the present one and that
they would prefer to submit to the present
unsatisfactory and discriminating rates
rather than to face the inevitable havoc
which a specific rate exceeding 55 cents
a pound would accomplish.
MIR. Payne endeayLred to elicit an al
mission that the Mckinley law had not
been in force long enough to demonstrate
the effects on the business of 81 a pound
rate but this the president of the Manu-
faoturers' association would not concedc.
Don't you think the duty on cigars I'M
der the law of either 1890 or 1894 is pretty
Yes was the answer.
The manufacturers OF clear Havana
cigars were represented by f.. X. Gunby
Of Tampa, Fla. He expressed surprise at
the statements made by previous speakers.
From these statements, he said it appear
ed that the manufacturers of New York
and Connecticut knew what the growers
OF tobacco in Havana wanted much better
than the growers themselves. From the
fnmpntc II n hp infnrraI hot
Havana tobacco reaped all the benefits
from the present scheme. This was far
from the truth Describing the condition
of Havana tobacco business he declared
that the growing and packing of it was
entirely beyond the control of American
buyers. Having been collector OF the port
of Tampa. Mr. Gunby said he was NC
quainted With conditions of the inporta-
tions. 1t was true. he said that only about
per cent of the Havana tobacco imported
into the United States and used as wrap
pers paid duty as such because the manu-
facturers used much tobacco commercially
appraised as "iillers'' for wrappers. 1t was
impossible to tell in importing such stock
how much of ii would be fit for wrappers,
1t might be 5. 10 or Is per cent To tax it
as wrappers would stop its importation en-
tirely and would drive the manufacturers
of New York and Florida to Cuba. 1t was
probably true that a specific duty of 52la
or SIS cents a pound would produce as
much revenue as the present law. but 1t
was also true that Sumatr9 would be I'M
ported to an extent which would drive the
farmers of New York and Connecticut out
of business. The tobacco schedule of the
Mckinley law had increased the business
OF Florida manufacturers by decreasing
that of the Havana manufacturers.
For the manufacturers using Sumatra
wrappers. George j Smith of New York
protested against the advantages to the
Havana tobacco users under the present
law. In answer to a question Mr.. Smith
said he did not believe any crags were
made of American filters and Havana
wrappers. Mr.. l.. II. Leudecker Of Balti-
more contended that a duty OF so cents
per pound would produce more revenue
than the present rates.
Mr.. ]. I. Ellison of New York. editor
of the United States Tobacco Journal,
stated that the cost of producing a pound
of Sumatra tobacco was 24la cents.
Chairman Dingey said before the COM
mittee adjourned that tobacco being a
luxury was proper subject for revenue with
indicental regard to the interests of man
ufacturers and growers.