Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-08-12


lutely controls the crude rubber supply.
The worlds production of crude rubber
in 1909 was about 175,OOO,OO0 pounds, OF
which the United States took about 49,
100000 pounds. The production of the
Intercontinental Rubber Co. and its su-
bordinate companies was about 100000
pounds, or less than per cent. Of the
whole
LAS / have already stated, the Inter-
continental Rubber Co. has never had any
relations with the other producers and
has never controlled or attempted to con-
troll or to influence either the production
or the price of crude rubber. Anyone
who has ordinary intelligence must I'M
derstand how futile such an attempt
would be, if made.
ITO say that the advance which took
place from month to month in the price
of crude rubber throughout the world
from 70 cents in 1902 to So in 1910 was
owing to an unimportant increase of
from 80 to So per cent. in August. 1903.
on importatiOns affecting less than ! per
cent. in value of the total product of
rubber, displays a depth of ignorance
which has rarely been reached. The claim
that this same change of from 30 to So per
cent enabled a party who never had any
interest whatever or any connection with
anyone engaged in the manufacture of
rubber to advance the price of all rubber
products and to make enormous profits
out of such advances, discloses a mar
vellous aptitude for fiction in narrative.
LAS to the dividends paid by the Inter-
continental Rubber Co. on it's preferred
aly IN, ha ~, h., h;
year, | will say that these were deferred
payments of cumulative dividends; de-
ferred as the earnings of the company
had heretofore been used in the devel-
opment of its business. No one mill of
the earnings from which dividends were
paid could be attributed, as l have al
ready stated to the tariff of the United
States or to any change in tariff rates
The change in the tariff on manufactures
of rubber not otherwise provided for,
from 30 to 81 per cent, in Paragraph 4631,
was not made or recommended for pro-
tectiVe purposes or at the instance of or
for the benefit of any domestic manufac-
turer. 1t was made upon the recommend
alton of the treasury experts solely for
administrative purposes
The fact is, that at the time the tariff
act was passed the American rubbe.
manufacturer had for most classes of
goods mndisputed control Of the American
market, and in a number of cases the do
nestle producer was able to export some
portion of his product to other countries.
The statistics submitted by the finance
committee to the Senate in April. 1909.
showed value of manufactured products
In the country in 1904 of $l48OOO, 600. and
exports in 1907 the value of over $4,000. 900,
while the imports referred to have never
reached in value u per cent of the do
nestle production.
There has been in recent years a
considerable falling off in the value of
the imports of rubber manufacturers
owing largely to the fact that the
American market for automobile tires
and to the fact that two of the most
important makers of tires, Michelin
and the Continental Co. transferred
their plants for the supply of their
American market to the United States
When the tariff bill reached the fin
anCe committee it was stated to us by
the treasury experts who had been as
signed by the President to assist the
committee in the preparation of amend
ments that 1t was extremely desirable
that the rates of duty imposed by Par
agrapns $40, 427. ass and 465 of the
House bill on the miscellaneous manu-
features of various materials should
be uniform with the rates imposed on
similar manufactures in other parts Of
the bill"
Continuing Senator Aldrich says that
the amendments of fact that led to the
n n a mir nonc1nSinn of tho
committee and the conference commit
tee to recommend an increase of duty
on the articles named in Paragraph 463
are clearly set forth in Judge Shar-
rett's letter to him. In this letter Judge
Sharret said:
Under instructions from President
Taft, was in Washington and gave
such aid as l was able to the finance
committee Of the Senate in the prepar-
alton of the tariff act of 1909.
Regarding Paragraph 463, l urged
that the rates of duty specified therein
should be made 35 per cent. instead of
30 per cent as in Paragraph 449 of the
Dingley act" Judge Sharrett then
goes on to cite the reasons he gave to
the committee in support of his recon-
mendation.
General Sharrett's letter concludes:
after listening to the reasons l gave
for the proposed change, the finance
committee unanimously approved of
the recomm endation and the conference
committee, before whom l made the
same statement. did the same, both
House and Senate agreeing that it
would be the part of wisdom to avoid
the continuance of the difficulties and
disputes that had arisen between the
government and the importers due to
the slight difference in the rates of
dutis between Paragraph 44S (463l and
the other paragraphs mentioned. The
wiadom of this charge has been fully
demonstrated by the fact that, although
there We've many thousands of cases
litigated under the act of 1898 for the
reasons set forth under the present
act there has not been single case"
After setting forth the communication
of General Sharrett Senator Aldrich
continues:
THE committee found that if the
desired uniformity was secured by ma
king I'll the rates 80 per cent. instead of
35 per cent this would have involved
loss of revenue-based upon the i'm
portations of 1908, of more than half
million dollars. Therefore they decid-