York, I have been elected to appear before this committee, and respectfully say, on
behalf of the fur merchants, that we are contented with the present tariff schedule
pertaining to furs. \Ve, however, respectfully ask to have the three words "but not
repaired," in second line of paragraph 439, stricken out in the bill now being prepared.
These words are ambiguous, and the interpretation of their meaning have caused the
fur merchants a great deal of expense, and after considerable delay a decision was



5366 TARIFF HEARINGS.

PABAGBAPH 439 FTTBS.

rendered by the General Board of Appraisers nullifying their import as originally
interpreted, and it is to eliminated the probability of the same question arising again
that we ask for the elimination of the three words above mentioned.
Respectfully, yours,

ALFRED EISENBACH
(For Fur Merchants' Credit Association).

BRIEF OF ALEX. E. KLAHRE & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y.

NEW YORK, January 29, 191S.
The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIRS: We would respectfully call your attention to paragraph 439 pertaining
to furs, skins, etc., and would ask that on the following furs dressed on the skins,
namely: Sheepskin rugs, goatskin rugs, dogskin robes and mats, kidskin crosses, and
lambskin crosses, which are under paragraph 439 in the prevailing law dutiable at 35
per cent, be reduced to 20 per cent.

The above-named skins are tanned and sewed together in China, but can not be
used in this condition as imported and must be resewn, cleaned, and dyed. .

On single tanned goatskins, single tanned dogskins, single tanned sheepskins and
lambskins, a duty of 20 per cent, same duty as in prevailing law.

All raw skins free as in the present law.

We are convinced that in the event of the reductions of duties on the skins named,
h e revenue to the Government will be largely increased.

It is a well-known fact amongst the trade that owing to the present rates of duties our
manufacturers and importers are somewhat timid in importing the quantities of skins
from China they otherwise would do if lower rates of duties prevailed, depending
upon the European markets for their purchases from time to time and paying the
extra profit to the importers of those markets, which should inure to the benefit of
manufacturers of our country.

One of the largest firms of manufacturers in Milwaukee made the statement a few
days ago that owing to the excessive duty of 35 per cent the firm was compelled to
discharge a large number of working men because of the difficulty in selling their
output on account of the high duty.

Very respectfully, yours, ALEX. E. RLAHRE & Co.

BRIEF OF LOWERRE & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y., ET AL.

NEW YORK, January 27, 191S.
The COMMITTEE ON WATS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: Referring to paragraph 439 under Schedule N of the present tariff,
we beg to petition your committee in regard to the rough furs which are commonly
known as goat and sheep "rugs" and "mats" and dog "mats," and ask that this class
of furs be separated from the general class and be put by themselves with a special
rating of their own. We ask this for the reason that they are of an entirely different
class of material, being cheaper and rougher than what are commonly known as
"fancy furs." However, on account of not having separate classification, they are
included in the second part of paragraph 439 under Manufactures of furs further
advanced than dressing and dyeing and prepared for use as material, including plates,
linings, and crosses, 35 per cent ad valorem," thus putting them on an equal basis
with goods which are already prepared in the greater part for manufacture.

We give you the following arguments in favor of a separate listing and reduction:

First. We have no ax to grind. We neither gain nor lose on account of the higher
duty. The only effect it has is to make the manufactured article cost more to the
consumer, without giving to anyone any added protection whatever, as this class of
furs is used only for the manufacture of carriage robes and a cheap grade of men's fur
coats, none of which are imported into this country in the manufactured state.

Second. The terms "rugs and "mats" are simply trade names for certain standard
sizes of furs, and has no meaning in any other sense than this. While they are not
one separate skin, the skins are simply pieced out on the sides with a loose stitch and
basted' to bring them up to the standard of Measurement. This stitch is absolutely
worthless as far as being of any use in the manufacturing, it being necessary to rip the
sewing, cut the "rugs" and "mats" apart, rematch and sew before they are of market-
able value as far*as manufacture is concerned. The principal reason for these furs



SCHEDULE N. 5367

PARAGRAPH 439 FURS.

being imported in these sizes is because the importer in this country is better able
to ascertain what amount of material he is getting than if he bought them in the
regular skin shape, the skins being of variable sizes.

Thirdly. It requires just as much work to manufacture a robe or coat from these
"rugs" or "mats" as it would to manufacture from natural shaped skins.

Fourthly. The natural shaped skins, which are no further advanced than these
"rugs" or "mats," can be brought in at 20 per cent, even though they may be dyed
abroad. The fancy fur plates, auch as squirrel, etc., even though dyed, can be brought
in at the same rate of duty (35 per cent) as our "rugs" and "mats," which we import
in the undyed state entirely.

What we claim is that China goat and sheep "rugs" and "mats" and dog "mats,"
loosely basted together to make a standard size, not machine sewed, should be under a
separate heading, so worded, at 20 per cent duty.

In making this appeal to your committee, we beg to impress upon you the fact
that this will reduce this class of skins to the old rate of duty at which they were
always entered under the old Dingley tariff; that the advance of 15 per cent made ito
the last revision of the tariff simply increased the cost of the manufactured article to
the consumer, giving no protection to any manufacturer in this country; and that
under the present tariff it would be advantageous for us to have our raw material
dyed abroad instead of in this country, as we are doing now, and importing it in the
dyed state, being able to do so without any increase in the tariff rate.

We beg you to take this all into consideration.

Respectfully submitted.

LOWEEEE & CO.

CRAVENHORST & Co.
HENRY HOFFMAN.
KAYE & EINSTEIN (!NO.).
MAX SCOTT.

BRIEF OF LANPHER, SKINNER & CO., ST. PAUL, MINN., CON-
CERNING FUR AND FUR-LINED GARMENTS.

ST. PAUL, MINN., January 28, 1913.
The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: Referring to paragraph 439 under Schedule N of the present tariff,
we beg to petition your committee in regard to the rough furs, which are commonly
known as Chinese dog mats and dog plates, and ask that this class of furs be separated
from the general class and be put by themselves with a special rating of their own.
We ask this for the reason that they are of an entirely different class of material, being
cheaper and rougher than what are commonly known as fancy furs. However, on
account of not having separate classification, tney are included in the second part of
paragraph 439 under "Manufactures of furs further advanced than dressing and dyeing
and prepared for use as material, including plates, linings, and crosses, 35 per cent
ad valorem," thus putting them on an equal oasis with goods which are already pre-
pared in the greater part for manufacture. We give you the following arguments in
favor of a separate listing and reduction:

First. We neither gain nor lose on account of the higher duty. The only effect
which it has is to malce the manufactured article cost more to the consumer without
giving to anyone any added protection whatever, as this class of furs is used only for
the manufacture of carriage robes and a cheap grade of men's fur coats, none of which
are imported into this country in the manufactured state.

Second. The terms "mats" and "plates" are simply the trade names for certain
standard sizes of furs and have no meaning in any other sense than this. While they
are not one separate skin, they are simply piecea out on the sides with a loose stitch
and basted to bring them up to the standard of measurement. This stitch is abso-
lutely worthless as far as being of any use in the manufacturing, it being necessary to
rip the sewing, cut the mats and plates apart, rematch them, and sew them,
before they are of marketable value, as far as manufacture is concerned. The prin-
cipal reason for these furs being imported in these sizes is because the importer in
this country is better able to ascertain what amount of material he is getting than if
he bought them in the regular skin shape, the skins being of variable sizes.

Third. It requires just as much work to manufacture a robe or coat from these mat*
or plates as it would to manufacture from natural shaped skins.



5368 TAEIFF HEARINGS.

PARAGRAPH 439 FURS.

Fourth. The natural shaped skins which are no further advanced than these mats
and plates can be brought in at 20 per cent, even though they may be dyed abroad . The
fancy fur plates, such as squirrel, etc., even though dyed, can be brought in at the
same rate of duty (35 per cent) as our mats and plates, which we import in the undyed
state entirely.

What we claim is that China dog mats and plates loosely basted together to make a
standard size, not machine sewed, should be under a separate heading, so worded, at
20 per cent duty.

In making this appeal to your committee, we beg to impress upon you the fact that
this will reduce this class of skins to the old rate of duty at which they were always
entered under the old Dingley tariff, but the advance of 15 per cent made in the last
revision of the tariff simply increased the cost of the manufactured article to the con-
sumer, giving no protection to any manufacturer in this country, and that under the
present tariff it would be advantageous for us to have our raw material dyed abroad
instead of in this country, as we are now doing, and importing it in the dyed state,
being able to do so without any increase in the tariff rate, and it could be stated in the
separate clause for China dog mats and plates, loosely basted together to make a
standard size, not dyed and not machine sewed, to be admitted at 20 per cent duty.
This would protect our dyers and benefit us all, giving us a separate heading, and not
including us in the fancy-fur schedule.

We beg you to take this all into consideration and give the matter an unbiased
decision.

Yours, very truly, LANPHER, SKINNER & Co.

A. HOENIGSBERGER, CHICAGO, ILL., WRITES ON THE
SUBJECT OF FURS.

CHICAGO, January 27, 1918.
The COMMITTEE ON WATS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: Referring to paragraph 439 under Schedule N of the present tariff, we
beg to petition your committee in regard to the rough furs, which are commonly known
as goat and sheep "rugs" and "mats" and dog "mats," and ask that this class of furs
be separated from the general class and be put by themselves with a special rating of
their own. We ask this for the reason that they are of an entirely different class of
material, being cheaper and rougher than what are commonly known as "fancy furs."
However, on account of not having a separate classification, they are included in the
second part of paragraph 439, under "Manufactures of furs further advanced than
dressing and dyeing and prepared for use as material, including plates, linings, and
crosses, 35 per cent ad valorem," thus putting them on an equal basis with goods which
are already prepared in the greater part for manufacture. We give you the following
arguments in favor of a separate listmgand reduction.

First. We have no ax to grind. We neither gain nor lose on account of the higher
duty. The only effect which it has is to make the manufactured article cost more to
the consumer, without giving to anyone any added protection whatever as this class of
furs is used only for the manufacture of carriage robes and a cheap grade of men's fur
coats, none of which are imported into this country in the manufactured state.

Second. The term "rugs " and "mats " is simply the trade name for certain standard
sizes of furs and has no meaning in any other sense than this. While they are not one
separate skin, they are simply pieced out on the sides with a loose stitch and basted to
bring them up to the standard of measurement. This stitch is absolutely worthless as
far as being of any use in the manufacturing, it being necessary to rip the sewing, cut
the "rugs " and "mats " apart, rematch them, and sew them before they are of market-
able value, as far as manufacture is concerned. The principal reason for these furs
being imported in these sizes is because the importer in this country is better able to
ascertain what amount of material he is getting, than if he bought them in the regular
bkin shape, the skins being of variable sizes.

Third. It requires Just as much work to manufacture a robe or coat from these
"rugs" or "mats" as it would to manufacture from natural-shaped skins.

Fourth. The natural - shaped skins which are no further advanced than these
"rugs" and "mats" can be brought in at 20 per cent, even though they may be dyed
abroad. The fancy fur plates, such as squirrel, etc., even though dyed, can be
brought in at the same rate of duty (35 per cent) aa our "rugs" and "mats, " which
we import in the undyed state entirely.



SCHEDULE N. 5369

PARAGRAPH 439 FURS.

What we claim is that China goat and sheep "ruga" and "mats" and dog "mats, "
loosely basted together to make a standard size, not machine sewed, should be under
a separate heading, so worded, at 20 per cent duty.

In making this appeal to your committee, we beg to impress upon you the fact that
this will reduce this class of skins to the old rate of duty, at which they were always
entered under the old Dingley tariff; that the advance of 15 per cent made in the
last revision of the tariff simply increased the cost of the manufactured article to the
consumer, giving no protection to any manufacturer in this country, and that under
the present tariff it would be advantageous for us to have our raw material dyed
abroad instead of in this country, as we are doing now, and importing it in the dyed
state, being able to do so without any increase in the tariff rate, and it could be stated
in the separate clause, for China goat and sheep "rugs" and "mats" and dog "mats"
loosely basted together to make a standard size, not dyed and not machine sewed,
to be admitted at 20 per cent duty. This would protect our dyers and benefit us all,
giving us a separate heading and not including us in the fancy fur schedule.

We beg you to take this all into consideration and give the matter an unbiased
decision.

A. HOENIGSBERGER,

Per DAVE HOENIGSBERQEE.
BRIEF OF DA WES & HANN, JOHNSTOWN, N. Y.

JOHNSTOWN, N. Y., January 98, 19 IS.
SECRETARY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We are little manufacturers and can not come to Washington, but we
would be very grateful if your committee would look into the matter of duty on fur-
lined gloves. It seems to us that the duty should be just as much on furs when they
are used as glove linings as on fur skins when we import them to be used here as glove
linings. If we pay 20 or 35 per cent ad valorem should not this same duty be added
to imported gloves when fur lined?
Thanking you for your consideration, we beg to remain,

Yours, respectfully, DA WES & HANN.

BRIEF OF CONRAD FUR CO., WINONA, MINN.

WINONA, MINN., January SO, 1913.
The COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: Permit us to add our little mite in the number of petitions with which
we presume you are at the present time flooded. We refer to paragraph No. 439,
under schedule 'N,' in the present tariff. We believe that the present rate of 35
per cent is altogether- too high.

Remember this one thing: The rich do not wear garments made from "sheep rugs"
or "dog mats." The only people who wear this class of merchandise are the poorer
western farmers in the Dakotas and throughout the Northwest; possibly, to some
extent in the cities, the chauffeurs and street-car drivers, who are constantly exposed
to the extreme cold and to whom a cheap, warm garment is a necessity. Take as an
example a dog mat that costs a dollar down in the New York customhouse. It stands
the importer $1.35. He figures 5 per cent profit on $1.35. We, the manufacturers,
figure at least another 10 per cent when we sell the made-up article to the retailers.
The retailer, in his turn, must add at least 25 per cent on his cost, so that ultimately
tke consumer pays at least from 40 to 50 per cent on top of the 35 per cent. We believe
that this is an injustice to the consumer.

The dressers and dyers do not need a 35 per cent protection, as far as the difference
in the cost of labor is concerned, and it looks inconsistent to us that the rich, who wear
Russian sables and other costly furs, pay no duty on these articles, simply because the
skins come in raw. We believe that if it is necessary to retain a certain amount of
duty on furs for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Government, it would
be better to put a certain amount of duty on raw sable skins, chinchillas, sea otters,
broad tails, and other fine foreign furs furs that are used almost exclusively by those
to whom a difference of $10 or $100 doesn't amount to anything.
Yours, very truly,

CONRAD FUR Co.,
Per MAX A. CONRAD.



5370 TAKIFF HEAEINGS.

PABAGRAPH 439^-FTJBS.

BRIEF OF AAEON NAUMBURG, REPRESENTING THE HAT-
TERS' FUR INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES.

NEW YORK CITY, January 28, 191S.
The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN : This memorial is presented in behalf of the entire hatters' fur industry
of the United States, composed of Jonas & Naumburg, New York City; H. & A.Chapal
Freres & Co., Brooklyn, N. Y.; Bloch & Hirsch Fur Co., Brooklyn, N. Y.; Hitchcock,
Dermody & Co., Brooklyn, N. Y.; Pellissier, Jeunes & Rivet, Brooklyn, N. Y.;
H. Picard & Co., Newark, N. J.; Dormer & Co., Newark, N. J.; Martin Bates, jr.,
& Co., South Norwalk, Conn.; American Hatters & Furriers' Co., Danbury, Conn.;
J. W. Katz, Newark, N. J.; John B. Stetson Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; New England
Fur Co., Fall River, Mass.; Waring Hat Manufacturing Co., Yonkers, N. Y.; Peck
Fur Co., Danbury, Conn.; and Robinson Fur Co., Danbury, Conn.

Its purpose is to convey, in a brief and concise statement, information for the benefit
of the committee, in order that intelligent consideration may be given to those para-
graphs of the existing tariff act affecting our industry.

The industry is mainly centralized within a radius of 100 miles of New York City,
employs over 3,500 persons in the various factories, and consists solely of removing
the hair or fur from the skin of the rabbit, hare, nutria, and beaver, after opening,
carding, cleaning, and other processes, and chemically treating it with a solution of
nitric acid and quicksilver (or mercury), called "carroting," producing a product
commonly known as hatters' furs. This product is sold to fur-felt hat manufac-
turers and is manufactured into fur-felt hats by a separate and distinct industry.

The industry is affected under the act of August 5, 1909, by the following paragraphs:

"Paragraph 439: Furs dressed on the skin, not advanced further than dyeing, but
not repaired, twenty per centum ad valorem; manufactures of furs, further advanced
than dressing and dyeing, when prepared for use as material, including plates, lining^
and crosses, thirty -five per centum ad valorem; articles x>f wearing apparel of every
description, partly or wholly manufactured, composed of or of which fur is the com-
ponent material of chief value, fifty per centum ad valorem. Furs not on the skin,
prepared for hattere' use, including fur skins carroted, twenty per centum ad valorem. "

"Paragraph 573: Furs, undressed.

"Paragraph 574: Fur skin of all kinds not dressed in any manner and not specially
provided for in this section."

From the statement heretofore made it will be observed that this industry consists
of various incidental treatments, including carroting, of the fur of various small
animals, and it therefore is apparent that it is the skins with the fur thereon of these
various animals which forms the raw material and is the basic property of our product.
All of this raw material is imported from other countries, principally the cold regions
of Europe and Australasia. The fur used comes almost exclusively from animals
not indigenous to North American climates, nor has it been possible to breed them
in any climate but that of the above-mentioned countries and still retain the com-
mercial characteristics of the fur proper (or fiber) which solely determines the use
and value in the manufacture of hatters' furs.

All of our product goes into the manufacture of fur-felt hats, and is purchased by
hat manufacturers. The home consumption of hatters' furs during the past 20 years
has not had a decidedly wide range, only increasing in slight proportions as the increase
in the manufacture of fur-felt hats became stimulated by the demand of an ever-
growing population; and yet the annual value of our production has undergone marked
changes, due entirely to the wide fluctuations in the values of the skins in the foreign
markets. This value has been regulated by the law of supply and demand, and the
highest values have doubled the lower values as the markets changed, so wide has been
the range.

Indeed, it is only through liberal lines of credit extended by the domestic manu-
facturer and the ability to n*ake quick delivery, that we are able to maintain our
advantage over the European market.

The duty of 20 per cent, standing by itself, is not sufficient to protect American
labor against its foreign competitor. We are prepared to furnish the committee with
the real facts respecting the cost of production in European factories, and our investiga-
tion proves that the labor cost in Europe is from 45 to 59 per cent less than the labor
cost in the United States, which may be confirmed by data in your possession from
Consular Reports, as well as absolute statistics in our possession.

The European manufacturer has this additional advantage: Their factories are
located in close proximity to where the fur skins are collected, substantially all the



SCHEDULE N. 5371

PARAGRAPH 439 FURS.

chemicals with which the fur is treated are purchaseable cheaper abroad, and they
have a recognized decrease in the cost of production (rent, office expense, etc.)- The
duty of 20 per cent is one of the lowest rates in the present schedule on manufactured
products, and is a tariff for revenue only.

In order that the committee may have before it accurate information from which
they may intelligently estimate what benefit the consumer would receive in the event
that the entire tariff wall should be removed from our home products and hatters'
furs admitted absolutely free of duty, we beg to state that the hatters' furs in the
finished hat represents from 7 to 10 per cent of its selling price in the retail store,
varying according to quality, and if the duty on hatters' furs were entirely removed,
it would mean a saving of less than the 20 per cent duty on the cost price of this hatters'
fur, equal to from 3 to 5 cents on every hat purchased at retail by the consuming public.
We arrive at this conclusion from the knowledge in our possession that the cost of the
fur in a hat sold at retail at $2 (the popular price in this country) is not more than from
$1.84 to $2.06 per dozen.

It therefore appears that a hat which is sold to the consumer at $2 contains a little
over 16 cents worth of fur, and that if the duty were entirely removed the reduction to
the consumer, assuming that the consumer would be the sole beneficiary, would be
20 per cent of the fur value, or about 3 cents. This condition would result if the tariff
would be entirely removed; if the rate is only reduced, then the difference would
be fractional. The immediate beneficiaries of any reduction in the duties would
apparently be the manufacturers of hats. The benefits of home manufacture, which