Evening star., 1909-06-30
John Norris Charges "Grave
Errors of Fact"
COST OF MAKING PAPER
Declares Senator's Figures Higher
Than Given in Mill Reports.
DISCRIMINATION IS 1NTIMATED
Says Representative of Consumers
Had to Wait for Weeks for a
Hearing Before Committee.

Senator Aldrich is severely arralgned by
John Norris of the American Newspaper
Publishers Association in circular letter
which Mr. Norris has sent to newspaper
publishers. 1t is copy of letter to
Senator Aldrich under date of June -. in
which Mr.. Norris charges that Senator
Aldrioh was guilty of grave errors of
fact in his utterances in the Senate when
the tariff on wood pulp and print paper
was under discussion. The letter says, in
part
Cost of Making Paper.
You said tp. 800 Cong. Record 1T
would cost S31..D per ton under the most
favorable circumstances. excluding insur-
ance. taxes and general expenses of the
company. to produce ton of paper in
the United States And yet at that mo-
ment you had in your possession the
statement of the International Paper
Company itself respecting the Hudson
river mills, that for two years the cost of
paper was $500 per ton including the
items of insurance, taxes and general ex-
penseS, and $500. excluding those items.
a difference of $3.50 per ton.
You led the Senate to understand that
Mr. Chisholm of the International Paper
Company and l had agreed that the cost
of manufacturing paper at the Belgo
Canadian mill was $3.50 per ton can
statement. l furnished you a statement
showing that the cost at the BelSo mill
was S31 .0S.
..At the same time you asked Ip. 3a,2,
Cong. Rec.) that there be put in the
Record in justification of the action OF
the finance committee, a statement by
Senator Smoot showing that there was
difference of more than 81 per ton In the
cost of manufacturing paper in the United
States as against Canada, and yet the
Sfa which Senator SmOOt furnished
did not touch upon the cost of production
in any way nor even mention 1t.
Aldrich Directly Questioned.
when Senator Jones of Washington
asked you to submit proof of your state
ments you said (p. 3521, Cong. Rec):
When that committee amendment is be-
fore the Senate the committee will state
all the facts pertaining to the duty pro-
posed. Did you redeem that pledge?
Did you let in daylight upon two affi-
davits relating to Canadian costs sub
mitted by paper makers which will show
dscreditable methods and the worthless
ness OF their testimony and the attempted
bribery of mill employees? Did you state
all the facts?
AT the outset of this inquiry you prom
ised the representatives of the American
Newspaper Publishers Association that
you would carefully investigate the mat
you said that YOU had given ten weeks
study to the matter. Nevertheless, SO far
from doing so, when / presented TO you
the evidence relating to 1SS mill reports
you brushed them aside and refused to
look at them, and every line Of your
speech. indicates that whatever investi-
cation you have made in this matter has
been to small purpose.
Difficulty in Getting Hearing.
THE paper makers were in almost con-
tinuous touch with the finance committee
for ten weeks. but the representative Of
the consumers could not get a hearing
from that full committee until after eight
weeks of application and continuous wait
ing in Washington. He finally obtained
a hearing June 8. after he had printed
and issued public complaint against
the discrimination of the finance COM
mittee He was allowed forty minutes
to state the case, most of which time
was consumed with the Interruptions and
discussions of the committeeman, but the
intention of the finance committee to in
crease the House rate had been an
nounced by at least one member OF the
hearing"
Among other erroneous statements in
connection with this tariff with which
Senator Aldrich is charged by Mr.. Nor
ris is his denial of the statement that
the paper trust had charged $50 a ton
for newsprint paper. Mr.. Norris quotes
the testimony of Gen Felix Agnus of the
Baltimore American. who said he is un-
der contract to pay $50 a ton for his
paper. The Providence Journal in Mr.
Aldrich's home town had been paying
the same rate.
Mr.. Norris says that Senator Aldrich's
statement that the paper companies did
consider an advance In price but never
sold paper at that advance is refuted
by the testimony of every man in the
newspaper business and the newspaper
trade. The actual advance up to May
1908, aggregated S5.O0OOOO per annum
Mr.. Norris also cites a number of other
alleged misstatements and omissions by
Senator Aldrich in this connection, some
of them of very material nature in the
controversy.