Mr. CURREN. You can not have it defined in any other way than it is defined in this paper. The Chinese matting is a matting made from grass, and the other is made from cocoa fiber.

Senator HISCOCK. You have no objection to Mr. Sloane's coming here?

Mr. CURREN. None whatever.

Senator HISCOCK. He will simply fortify you.

Mr. CURREN. He sanctions my coming here, but there are two other firms that do not.

Senator HISCOCK. He is friendly to you in this matter?

Mr. CURREN. Certainly. Is there anything more I can do for you! Senator HISCOCK. No; I do not think there is.

Mr. Curren submitted the following:

JULY 10, 1888.

DEAR SIR: We are in thorough sympathy with the Mat Makers' Protective Association in their effort to have the duty adjusted, that their labor may be protected from unequal competition with the coolie labor of India and the convict labor of Europe. The present duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem does not equalize the cost of foreign labor with the labor of this country engaged in our industry, and for several years our factories have been running on half time, not having a market for our full production.

The annex schedule shows the relative cost of cocoa mats and cocoa matting made here and in India, and from this exhibit you will see that it takes a specific duty of 10 cents per square foot on mats, and 15 cents per square yard on matting to place American labor and capital on a par with foreign. We therefore hope you will use every effort to have the tariff bill so amended as to provide for a specific duty of 10 cents per square foot on mats and 15 cents per square yard on matting made wholly or in part of cocoa yarn, or cocoa fiber, or rattan; and that cocoa yarn, cocoa fiber, and rattan remain on the free list.

Yours, very respectfully,

W. & J. SLOANE, New York.

WAKEFIELD RATTAN CO., Boston.

LYNN & PETTIT, Philadelphia.
FRANK GREENLAND, Brooklyn.

JAMES SLOANE'S SONS, West Farms.

LAWRENCE MANUFACTURING Co., New York.

Exhibit showing comparative cost of cocoa mats and cocoa matting made here and in

The duty and freight charges to New York are included in the cost of the India goods.

Exhibit showing comparative cost of cocoa mats and cocoa matting—Continued.

LINSEED AND LINSEED-OIL.

FRIDAY, July 13, 1888.

Notes of a hearing of J. A. DEAN, of J. A. Dean & Co., New York, R. R. COLGATE, of the Atlantic White Lead and Linseed Oil Company of New York, and GEORGE A. THAYER, of Campbell & Thayer, New York City.

Mr. DEAN. I desire to submit to the subcommittee a letter written to Mr. Mills, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, by Mr. Beaman, Mr. Evarts's son-in-law. It covers the ground, and perhaps it would be well for me to read it. Senator ALDRICH. Suppose you read it. Mr. Dean read as follows:

OFFICE OF EVARTS, CHOATE & BEAMAN,
No. 52 WALL STREET,
New York, June 21, 1888.

DEAR SIR: You will remember that yesterday I had a short conference with you in reference to the provisions in the proposed tariff bill as to duties on linseed and linseed-oil. Under the existing tariff the duty is as follows: Linseed, 20 cents per bushel; linseed-oil, 25 cents per gallon.

A bushel of the average imported seed produces, say, about 24 gallons of oil. The duty on 24 gallons of oil, under the existing tariff, would be, say, 624 cents. The duty on the seed that produces this oil would be 20 cents, and the difference between 20 cents and 624 cents, namely, 424 cents, would be the protection on 24 gallons of oil, which would amount to about 18 cents per gallon. Formerly the linseed-oil manufacturers were further protected by a drawback allowance on the cakes of about 5 cents per bushel. This drawback clause was left out of the last tariff. Now, the manufacturers I represent, namely, Messrs. Campbell & Thayer, and other manufacturers on the sea-coast, are in this position: they have built manufactories involving large amounts of capital and the employment of a large number of people, both at New York and Philadelphia, on the basis of an average protection, say, of 18 cent per gallon. Your proposed tariff bill fixes the duty as follows: Linseed, free; linseed-oil, 10 cents per gallon.

This was a change in the tariff made on the principle of free raw material and what you considered a proper duty on the manufactured article. My clients would make no special opposition to free seed, but in their opinion this reduction of the tariff on the manufactured article from 18 cents a gallon, in effect, to 10 cents a gallon was too much, by reason of the fact that all linseed-oil manufacturers in the United States are under considerable permanent disadvantage as compared with linseed-oil manufacturers in foreign countries, for the reason that there is a comparatively small market in the United States for linseed-cake, the principal bi-product of the linseedoil manufacturer. A bushel of seed will produce from 38 to 40 pounds of cake. This cake is used in England and in Europe largely for feed for cattle and sheep, and such use has not become at all general in the United States. The large proportion therefore of the linseed-cake from all mills and all the cake from sea-port mills is shipped to foreign countries for market.

You will see, then, that our manufacturers at the sea-coast, in competition with the English manufacturer who receives his seed free, must pay the cost of transportation to the United States, and then the cost of transportation of the cake from the United States back to England. This amounts to about 124 cents per bushel on an average, or what would be equal to about 5 cents per gallon on oil; so that, in considering what protection the American manufacturer should have on oil, you should take 5 cents per gallon from whatever protection you give him before you get him at all on the same basis as the English manufacturer. For instance, if your tariff bill provides for free

seed and a duty of 10 cents a gallon on oil, it is really only a protection to the American manufacturer of 5 cents a galon on oil. To the gentlemen that I represent this reduction practically of the protection that they now have of 18 cents to 10 cents is altogether too great, and it is very doubtful if they can carry on business at all in the United States on this basis, though they might do so under certain conditions of the market.

We learn further that it is proposed to change your proposed tariff bill by making the duty as follows: Linseed, 20 cents per bushel. Linseed-oil, 15 cents per gallon. Such a provision would be certainly ruinous to the sea-coast mills, and would result, as I am informed by my clients, in closing them up, for the following reasons: The duty on 24 gallons of oil which is obtained from a bushel of seed, would be 37 cents; deduct from 374 cents the duty on the seed, namely, 20 cents, and you have a protection of 174 cents on 24 gallons of oil, which would be equal to about 8 cents a gallon; deduct from these 8 cents a gallon the 5 cents a gallon which, as already explained, is the advantage which the English manufacturer has over the American manufacturer by reason of the cost of freight on the seed and the cost of freight on the cake, and you have a protection of the American manufacturer of 24 cents a gallon, as compared with 18 cents a gallon under the existing tariff.

Of course, this is outside of all questions of cost of labor in the United States and of all other facts, and a mere consideration of the figures I now present to you must satisfy you that such a proposed duty would be ruinous to the sea-coast linseed-oil manufacturers. Certainly it must be apparent to you further that such a reduction would be contrary to what I assume to be, in your opinion, all proper basis of tariff reform. This proposed change would leave the duty on the raw material as it is, at 20 cents a bushel, and then would reduce the duty on the manufactured goods to such a low point as to ruin the manufacturer. Whatever change you do make in these linseed and linseed-oil provisions of the tariff, whether you put linseed on as free and linseed-oil at, say, 10 or 15 cents a gallon, or whether you put the seed at 20 cents and the oil at 25 cents a gallon, you should always preserve the proportions between the duty on raw material and the duty on the manufactured product which has been observed in former tariffs, and upon the reliance in which the large linseedoil manufacturing establishments on the coast have been built up. Keep up this proportion in whatever reductions you may make, and my clients will take care of their business, but do not destroy these proportions, and above all, do not keep up the high duty on the raw material, and at the same time reduce the duty on the manufactured goods, so that the English oil will come in. The result of this will be not only destruction to my clients, but to the seed growing parties also, for if the English oil can come into this market, then there can be no sale for the flaxseed, or linseed, grown here.

Yours, very truly,

Hon. ROGER Q. MILLS, Esq.,

Washington, D. C.

C. C. BEAMAN.

Mr. DEAN. We did not intend to bring this to you at first, but it seems so concise a statement that we concluded we would do so.

Senator HISCOCK. What you want is to leave the law as it is?

Mr. DEAN. Yes; it is not such great protection. English oil is within 2 cents a gallon of the same price as our oil to-day, so that there is no such thing as an export high-priced oil. The advance this year is because of short crops.

Senator ALDRICH. Are you, or any one of these gentlemen, a member of the linseed-oil trust?

Mr. DEAN. None of us are.

Senator ALDRICH. What proportion of the linseed oil manufacturers of the United States are in this trust?

Mr. COLGATE. I should think about 75 per cent.

Senator ALDRICH. What proportion of the manufacturers in the East are in the trust?

Mr. COLGATE. I should say about one-fourth or one-fifth.

Senator ALDRICH. What proportion of the capacity of the manufacturers of the United States is in the trust?

Mr. COLGATE. I should think about the same capacity; about threefourths in the West, and about one-fifth in the East, Mr, DEAN. I should think not,

Mr. COLGATE. Speaking of prices

Senator ALDRICH. I mean the capacity of production of oil itself. Mr. THAYER. The very largest man in the West is out of the trust. Senator ALDRICH. What proportion of the total production of the United States is produced by concerns who are in the trust, in your opinion?

Mr. COLGATE. I should say about 60 per cent., at a rough guess. Mr. DEAN. I was going to say five-eighths myself.

Senator HISCOCK. Five-eighths of the capacity!

Mr. DEAN. Yes; or a little more.

Mr. COLGATE. We three are the largest producers of linseed-oil in the country.

Senator ALDRICH. Does there exist such a competition between manufacturers who are not members of the trust and the manufacturers who are members of the trust as to secure reasonable prices for the oil? Mr. COLGATE. I should think so.

Mr. DEAN. We can all three answer that question.

Senator ALDRICH. There is no such control of prices in the country as to give to the members of the trust a monopoly?

Mr. COLGATE. Oh, no.

Mr. THAYER. They can not.

Mr. COLGATE. The strongest mills and richest mills are out of the trust, almost all of them.

Mr. DEAN. Kellogg & Miller, of Amsterdam, and two in Buffalo, and three in New York, are large mills that are already out, even in the one State of New York. So that I think that my estimate of five-eighths is about right.

Senator ALDRICH. The trust is neither able to control prices nor the production of the country.

Mr. THAYER. That is true. Of course there is a strife.

Mr. COLGATE. They have nothing like the power that is generally supposed.

Senator ALDRICH. That is the reason we are asking. There have been statements made in the House that the linseed-oil trust did control both the production and prices.

Mr. DEAN. They control neither. Persons familiar with the manufacture know that that is very difficult to do. It does not enter into it at all, so far as we know. We have a perfectly open market. There is one fact that I would like to emphasize a little-if it were not for the manufacture of oil there would be no call for the growth of any linseed in this country. There is no use for the seed except to make the oil. Senator HISCOCK. I suppose the tariff on flaxseed will not be reduced at all.

Senator ALDRICH. We shall probably retain the present duty on both. Mr. THAYER. Keep oil as it is.

Senator ALDRICH. We probably shall.