The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-04-26

under obligation to take care of that
market, to anticipate and meet its de-
mands.
He declared the largest of these paper
makers, the international company, has
actually reduced its output of newspaper
print paper in ten years and he would
prove that that company is not selling as
much newspaper for domestic cons amp
ton today as 1t did ten years ago.
Millions Diverted.
Mr.. Norris asserted the s5OOO.OOO the In
ternational company borrowed in 1903
with which to build ten machines had
been diverted to other uses by ABANDON
ing the legitimate field of manufacture
and engaging in a gigantic speculation
in wood lands, in the purchase of thou
sands of miles of Canadian timber rights
and timber lands upon speculation, and
it computes a vast profit, generally esti-
After Mr. Norris had concluded his pre-
| liminary statement. Mr.. Mann, the CHAIR
man of the committee. said in answer TO
the several questions, that what the com
mittee wanted was information, and ne
added that it was ready TO receive any
facts which the association had to pre-
sent.
| CIoven Hoof Shown.
The question rose whether the COM
mittee would call upon the lnternatlor@l
! Paper company and other manufacturers
/ of print paper I'm the United States to
produce their books for examination.
Representative Miller remarked that tne
committee intended to have all the facts
| in the case. II for one, he said, 40 not
| propose 10 sign any committee report eX-
| cept upon the best Information and SUD-
| stantial proof nor do ] propose to be
subjected to criticism which your asso-
| citation has already placed upon this conf
mittee. Why you should have expressed
mistrust of committee of the house be-
| fore it had even got down to do the work
of the investigation is more than L can
| understand"
Mr.. Mann said that what the commit
| tee desired to get at once was whether
the publishers claim that removal OF the
| duty on wood pulp would cause de-
| crease in the price of print paper. ana
| whether the publishers proposed TO sup
| port before the committee the charge thdl
| the so-called paper trust Is a conspiracy
| in restraint of trade within the meaning
of the law. Mr.. Sims suggested:
II should like to hear your reasons why
we should pass the Stevens bill and what
the effect would be if we passed II. !
ask this question as one who IS in a
friendly attitude toward that bill.
Reply of Mr.. Norris.
| In reply Mr. Norris stated that the
price of paper to the newspapers is now
$3.50 per hundred pounds, recent adj
| vance from the former prevailing price oil
$3.50. He said that publishers would fur'
nsh the committee with exact quotations
showing what print paper was costing
| publishers at practically all the cOnsum'
ing points in the United States. He said
that the daily output of the Internatiolla
company is 1, 200 tons of print paper, rep
resenting the output of thirty mills, and
that this company is actually producing
today less print paper than 1t turned ou
ten years ago. He said that the Inter
national company and other manufactur'
ers of print paper in this country have
been buying extensively pulp wood and
timber in Canada.
Mr.. Sims thereupon asked whether tbs
81 h. n
would not be a discrimination agains
American woods. Mr.. Norris replied:
MY information is that the spruce sup
ply in this country is largely owned by
paper manufacturers and they are hold
ing it for the future and buying theil
supplies in Canada for the present.
Canadians at Disadvantage.
Quoting from William A Van Horne
the principal stakeholder in the Lauren
tide Paper company, TO show in reality
American mills produce under more ia
vorable conditions than do Canadian mills
Mr. Norris said that Canadian mills arr
at a disadvantage in comparison witt
American mills because the latter haV,
more SkIned labor, closer proximity t
their markets, cheaper supplies and ma
chinery, better rates for exporting ant
| lower marine rates; and the superiorit!
lOf American paper Is attested by tn
fact that in foreign markets ii command
| ~ per cent more than Canadian paper.
Mr.. Norris inStanced a case wherein
the Houston Crex.) Chronicle bought pa
per in Canada at $50 a ton MIR. Nam
then asked why the Canadian producer
were not favored by buyers. Mr. Nor
ris said the reason was that paper couli
not always be obtained in the canadian
market. He said the Boston Traveller. 70
instance, was unable TO make any salts
factory arrangement for getting it's sup
: ply there, but that the WOman's HON
, Companion few months ago made
? contract for Canadian paper at cent
| a hundred pounds less than the best quo
tations that could be obtained here an
that in this case the International Pane
] company had refused to give any quota
2 lions at all
Refused to Quote Figures.
That reams of letters were in his pos
! session showing that paper companies al
2 lot the consumers among each other Wa
declared by Mr.. Norris He said this fac
was shown by the constant refusal O
: companies to quote at all when allotted t
by consumers who have been allotted I
ton by them of prohibitive prices. MI
Norris said that this referred to CON
panieS outside the International company
= The question of distrust of the com
! mittee by the publishers, as expressed i
, a telegram of recent date, again cam
up and Mr.. Norris explained that he di
not think the publishers meant to crit
4 alton of the committee as a means c
4 causing delay and probably defeating les
= iSlatiVe action at this session,
Mr.. Mann replied:
If your aspersiOns on the committee q
not worry you any more than they worr
us. all is we'll"
The committee took an adjournment III
-. d.