The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1910-08-17

made by the Kansas senator, none ID
quite so ridiculous as that in which
he states that the 1ntercontinentall
Rubber company absolutely controls
the crude rubber supply. The worlds
production OF crude rubber In 1909
was about 175.000,000 pounds, Of
which the United States took about
93.OOO,00o pounds. The production Of
the Intercontinental Rubber company
and Its subordinate companies was
about. 10,0OO.00O pounds, or less than
6 per cent Of the whole.
As l have already stated. the In
rcontinental Rubber company has
never had any relations with the pro
Queer and has never controlled or at
tempted to control or influence either
the production or the price Of crude
rubber. Anyone who has ordinary
sense must know how futile the at
tempt would be.
Ignorance Displaysd.
To say that the advance which took
place from month to month in the
price Of crude rubber throughout the
world from 20 cents in 1902 to So In
1910. was owing to an unimportant In
crease OF from 30 to IS per cent In
August. 1909. on importations AFFECT
ing less than / per cent in value Of
the total product Of rubber, displays
10 depth Of ignorance which has rarely
been reached. The claims that this
same change from 80 to IS per cent
enabled party@who never had any in.
terest whatever or any connection
with anyone engaged In the manufac-
ture of rubber products and to make
ture Of rubber to advance the price Of
all rubber products and to make
enough profits out OF such advance
discloses . marvellous aptitude for fic-l
ton in narrative.
AS to the dividend paid by the In
tercontinental Rubber company on its
preferred stock In the early months
of the present year, l will say that
these were deferred payments of
cumulative dividends. As the earn
fings of the company had heretofore
been assessed In the department of
its business, not one mill of the earn
I ngs from which dividends were paid
could be attributed, ash have already
said. to the tariff of the United States
or to any change in tariff rates.
Why the Change Was Made.
The change in the tariff on manufac.
lures of rubber not otherwise pro-
vided for, from 80 to IS per cent in
paragraph 1853, was not made or re-
commended for protective purposes or
at the instance of or for the benefit
of any domestic manufacturer. 1t
was made upon the recommendation
of the treasury experts solely for adj
ministrative purposes. The fact is,
at the time the tariff act was pro
posed the American manufacturer for
most classes Of goods had undisputed
control of the American market, and
I in a number of cases the domestic
producer was able to export some por-
llon Of his product to other countries.
The statistics submitted by the finance
committee to the senate In April, 1909,
showed value of manufactured prod
ucts In the country of $14S. OO0, 900 and
exports in 1907 to the value of over
$4,000. 900, while the imports Of the
classes referred to have never reached
in value 10 per cent OF the domestic
production.
| There has been in recent years q
considerable falling OFF of the value
of imports of rubber manufactures
owing largely to the fact that the
American manufacturers were taken
loft the American market for automo-
bile tires and to the fact that two Of
the most important makers of tires
Michelin and the Continental com
pany- transferred their plants for the
supply Of their American market to
the United States.
When the tariff bill reached the
finance committee it was stated to US
by the treasury experts who had been
assigned by the president to assist
the committee in the preparation OF
amendments that it was extremely de-
sirable that the rates of duty i'm.
posed by paragraphs 40. 427, 455 and
465 of the published bill of the miscel.
laneous manufactures of various ma
terials should be uniform with the
rates imposed on similar material in
other parts Of the bill.
Judge Sharrett's Letter.
These statements of facts, that led
to the unanimous conclusion of the
| finance committee and the conference
committee to recommend an increase
OF duty on the articles named i'm para
graph 1853. are clearly set forth in the
following letter Of Judge Shalretts to
i me: