We inclose a copy of our letter to Assistant Secretary Howell, dated August 19, which gives the statistical information which you desire. In answer to your first question, we beg to say that the duty upon American sulphate of copper imported into France is 4 francs per 100 kilos gross weight, whereas the duty upon English sulphate of copper imported into France is 3 francs per 100 kilos, the difference being, as we understand it, the discriminating duty, owing to the French treaties and the favored-nation clause. This article is becoming a more and more important article of export from this country, and France is the largest consuming country in Europe, and we trust that you will arrange to include it in any arrangement which may be made. Respectfully, yours, W. R. PETERS & Co. The letter to Assistant Secretary Howell referred to above is as follows: NEW YORK, November 6, 1897. Assistant Secretary HOWELL, United States Treasury, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We notice from the daily papers that a conference is about to take place with the French ambassador with relation to the reciprocity provisions of the Dingley tariff bill, as affecting trade between this country and France, and we desire to call your attention to two articles of special interest to us and entitled to consideration, viz: First, sulphate of copper; second, argols or crude tartar and wine lees. The former is a growing article of export from this country, and is at present shipped abroad to the extent of about $800,000 per annum and likely to increase. France uses about 25,000 tons annually, valued at about $1,750,000. The French Government levies a duty of 4 francs per 100 kilos on American sulphate of copper, as against 3 francs on English, and the discrimination of 1 franc per 100 kilos practically prevents exports hence to France. Argols or crude tartar and wine lees are produced in all wine countries, especially France, which produces probably 40 per cent of the total. The United States imports these articles to the extent of about $2,500,000 annually. The Dingley tariff, Schedule A, paragraph 6, provides specific rates of duty, while the reciprocity provision of the tariff provides that these duties may be reduced to 5 per cent. We request that both these articles may be included in any recommendations made by you, as both are of importance to the various manufacturers in this country. Yours, truly, BALTIMORE COPPER SMELTING AND ROLLING Co. (BALTIMORE COPPER WORKS.) (Office: Keyser Building, German and Calvert streets.) Hon. JOHN A. KASSON, BALTIMORE, June 3, 1898. Reciprocity Commissioner, State Department, Washington, D. C. SIR: We notice by the public prints the consummation of your efforts in establishing a commercial agreement between the United States and France, and congratulate you upon the successful issue of same. We make free to inclose herewith copy of our letter to Secretary of Treasury, under date of August 31, 1897, which fully explains itself. Will you have the kindness to advise us whether the matter of sulphate of copper was considered? If so, was provision made for placing the United States on a competitive basis with England and other European countries? If not, is it probable, in your opinion, that this question may be considered by the French Government in the near future? It is a matter in which all American manufacturers of sulphate of copper are largely interested. They are kept out of the French market now absolutely because of the discriminating duty. Jos. CLENDENIN, Secretary. Respectfully, The inclosure referred to in the above letter is as follows: Hon. LYMAN J. GAGE, Secretary, BALTIMORE, August 81, 1897. United States Treasury Department, Washington, D. C. SIR: In the matter of "reciprocal arrangements" under the new tariff we beg leave to ask your attention to the article of sulphate of copper. Our company is one of five manufacturing this article (blue vitriol) in the United States. About one-half of the production finds a home market; balance is exported. France is one of the largest consumers, it being used there, as well as in other continental countries, for protection of the vines from phyloxera. It is estimated that 20,000 tons are used in France annually. The statistics at hand show that France imported during first half of this year From Great Britain.... Tons. 18, 059 10 This large trade is closed to United States competition by the discriminating French import duty in favor of England as against the United States of 1 franc per 100 kilos. As sulphate of copper is sold on so narrow a margin above cost, this discrimination is prohibitive. In Germany and in Italy, where there is no such discrimination, our producers have built up a large business in competition with English makers. We are also desirous to obtain a footing in France upon equal terms with the English product. In thus shutting out the American article there is no advantage to the French Government, while the vine growers are deprived of the benefit of competition it would afford. The consumption occurs in the spring and summer season, but the purchases by wholesale are made, in anticipation, during the fall and winter months, so that we are about entering upon the period in which contracts are made for the season of 1898. We commend this subject to the attention of the Administration, and trust it may have as early consideration as the publie interests will permit. Very respectfully, WM. KEYSER, President. Mr. BACON. Will you mention some of the principal manufacturing industries which could put their articles in there-the principal ones? I do not want an exhaustive statement. Mr. KASSON. I have a statement in that respect, which I will leave with the committee, which will show that there are several hundred articles. It was too long to put into the treaty; and besides, the allembracing clauses, which leave out nothing, are better than specific clauses, by which future inventions and discoveries would be excluded. I will say that every interest of the United States, except the 19 articles of the French tariff, which are named in the treaty, go in. When we seemed to be near the point of disagreement I told the French negotiators that I saw no reason why we should take part in their Exposition of 1900 if they were to continue to shut out the products of our industries by exceptional duties, and I did not see any reason for our presenting our merchandise in the Exposition if we could not derive any benefit of sales from so doing. I suppose that had some effect on the French Government, because it was a plain truth. I was saying that (addressing Senator Wolcott, who had just entered the room) owing to the maximum and minimum tariffs of France we have been shut out of the French market; that we only got in a little over $3,500,000 against $31,000,000 from Germany and $43,000,000 from England, and that our people have been clamoring to get into this market, saying that they could compete in it with other nations if they could only get the equal chance. Mr. FRYE. You might add that all the European countries and Great Britain have the advantage of their minimum tariff. Mr. KASSON. Yes, sir; every country except Portugal has gained by concession from France the minimum tariff, which varies from 15 to 75 per cent below the general tariff. There is another point about these tariffs: they change with great facility their minimum tariff to maximum and from one rate to another where there are no treaty arrangements. Mr. FRYE. How is that done? By law or by an order of the Government? Mr. KASSON. By a resolution authorizing the Government to do so or by express act of Parliament. The Government gets anything through there very quickly which is in the direction of striking at the commerce of other countries or of protection of their own. I want to add that when Mr. Patenotre and myself had for the time being dropped the negotiations under the fourth section of the tariff act, they had found out our sensitiveness on the subject of cotton-seed oil, which was a growing article of commerce and a very important one to the South. France, under the existing rate, took more of it than any other country in Europe. They saw a chance to strike us on that point, and they introduced a bill in their assembly, and the committee favored it, increasing the present duty on cotton-seed oil 100 per cent. The CHAIRMAN. What was the duty then? Mr. KASSON. Six francs a hundred kilos then, I believe, and we had under it a growing trade with France. Mr. BACON. Will you kindly give that in our measures? Mr. KASSON. $1.16 per 220 pounds weight, and they proposed to double it. They could bring in a general law, not especially stated to be aimed at American industries, but really doing so where we were really the only producers, or the chief ones. They went further in another direction, and more than doubled their duties on Chicago meat products very suddenly, and barred the market by lifting their maximum rates upon us, raising the minimum rate also. Chicago was badly alarmed, and wrote me about it, and I had to shut my eyes to their evident purpose to raise the duties and then lower them by a reciprocal convention, but I accepted the new minimum rates and so settled the question for the Chicago meat products, and obtained temporary security for the Southern cotton interests. This action pacified commercial fears for the present only, because it had also shown our weak position in the absence of conventional relations. After the arrangement of May, 1898, we took up the fourth section of the tariff bill with M. Cambon, with the results now before you. That is the outline story of this negotiation, and I think it important that you should know the facility the French have for striking us, in order to appreciate the security we get by this treaty against such action, so that, whatever they do hereafter, they can not discriminate against us. We are to have the lowest rates, whatever the future French legislation or treaty may be. We are to get into their market with all but the excepted articles at the lowest rates granted to any nation, and that is all the American producers ask for. The concessions by the United States are limited to particular articles. The CHAIRMAN. You limited the number by the specification of particular articles? Mr. KASSON. Yes, sir. Mr. FRYE. That may obviate the difficulties in regard to which some of these chemical and other people complain. Mr. KASSON. I have a written statement which I will leave with you, which may cover some of these points as they arise. On tiles, bricks, and mosaics there have been some objections made by our people, but here is a letter, which I will read, from the Mosaic Tile Company, of Zanesville, Ohio, dated December 22, 1899, and addressed to Hon. M. A. Hanna, United States Senate. They say that there has been some objection to the reduction on these articles, and then state that they beg to assure him on their own behalf, and "think that we can speak for our colleagues in the same line of manufacture, that we are prepared to take a broad view of such matters, and are willing to make our share of concessions for the general good, where it becomes nec essary." The CHAIRMAN. You give in this schedule the rate per cent of reduction as applicable to our tariff. Can you give us any list or statement as to the rate of reduction which the French minimum tariff will give us? Mr. KASSON. Yes; but we will have to go to the French tariff for it. All that I can do at this moment is to show the range. The CHAIRMAN. Where can we get such a statement or have you a statement that will show us the range of reduction as shown by the French minimum? Mr. KASSON. The percentage is shown in this French tariff. There [indicating in a book] is the United States equivalent for the francs (money), and the table shows the difference between the general (or maximum) and minimum tariffs. The CHAIRMAN. What book is that? Mr. KASSON. This is the Tariffs of Foreign Countries, and the French tariffs are comprised in pages 94 to 223, inclusive. Mr. FRYE. Is there any difficulty about getting the list mentioned? Mr. KASSON. They could be easily carried out from this book. They average, I should think, about 30 per cent. Mr. CULLOM. Reduction? Mr. KASSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Could you have a schedule prepared for us which will show the reduction? Mr. KASSON. Yes, sir; the list of articles covered by the treaty, and which I will give you, will show where we get the reduction, and the ratio can be added. Mr. FRYE. The average reduction is about 30 per cent? Mr. KASSON. I should say so, on manufactured articles. On crude petroleum, for instance, the minimum is 50 per cent of the maximum. Mr. BACON. We get the same minimum that has already been given to other countries, except Portugal? Mr. KASSON. Yes; or that shall be given hereafter. Mr. WOLCOTT. Are we put upon a better footing than any other country of Europe? Mr. KASSON. No; the same. Mr. WOLCOTT. On the identical footing with the countries of Europe? Mr. KASSON. Yes; the best footing given any other country. The treaty provides that we are to receive the lowest rates. Mr. WOLCOTT. What other countries receive the same benefits. Mr. WOLCOTT. Does the 3,000,000 to which you refer include petroleum? Mr. KASSON. No, sir; only manufactured articles, as ordinarily understood. On petroleum she has voluntarily given us the same rates as to Russia. On that point I wish to say, as petroleum figures largely in making our balance of trade, especially crude petroleum, that the difference is 50 per cent on crude petroleum and 60 per cent, or near it, on the refined, of which we send a less amount. When she gave this lower rate to Russia she voluntarily extended it to the United States, fearing, I suppose, a monopoly; but she can withdraw it, under present conditions, at any time she pleases, or modify it in favor of Russia. Mr. WOLCOTT. That does not depend upon this treaty? Mr. KASSON. Not at the present time, but if the treaty is ratified it will prevent any action against us in the future. Mr. BACON. Does that include cotton-seed oil? Mr. KASSON. I think the same may be said of cotton-seed oil. But I wish now to speak more particularly of manufactures. In silks I felt a peculiar ínterest and was particularly solicitous about them, owing largely to my connection with the subject when I was a member of the Committee on Ways and Means some years ago, and I have a gratifying letter from the secretary of the Silk Manufacturers' Association of America, which is as follows: The Hon. JOHN A. KASSON, THE SILK ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Special Minister Plenipotentiary, Department of State, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE AND DEAR SIR: Please accept my thanks for your enlightening favor of yesterday's date. I am very much pleased to learn that the reduction is as I supposed, say, nineteentwentieths of the present tariff rates. Naturally the American silk manufacturer could not be expected to favor any unnecessary break in the protective laws he is now working under, but the proposed concession to France is so slight that I do not believe there is any reason to fear opposition to the treaty on the part of the silk manufacturers generally. Thanking you for your courtesy in the matter, I am, FRANKLIN ALLEN, Secretary. I have read this letter to show that when people get their thinking caps on they appreciate that our concessions are not hard to our producers, and that they do see, on the other hand, the necessity of our utilizing the intention of the Dingley Act, which put high duties on goods, having in view the possibility and necessity of reducing them under the provisions of the fourth section of the act. There is no use in our concealing the fact that the reciprocity clause was a part of that tariff as much as the duties themselves, and effect must be given to it. Mr. FRYE. That is, you mean to say that the Committee on Ways and Means, when they framed the tariff bill, intended that that reciprocity clause should be used, and therefore they imposed high duties with the idea that they should be reduced in this manner? Mr. KASSON. Yes, sir; beyond a doubt. Perhaps I ought not to say so to you gentlemen who know best, but my understanding is that the two things were expressly made to go together, and I find my understanding confirmed in various quarters. The CHAIRMAN. A manufacturer of perfumes called on me yesterday, very much scared about the effect of this treaty, and I told him that I would ask you about it. Mr. KASSON. On perfumes a percentage is conceded which makes but a slight difference in the rate. For instance, as I explained to the silk men, say there is a duty of 50 per cent. A reduction of 5 per cent of the duty leaves the protection 47 per cent; a reduction of 10 per cent leaves the duty 45 per cent. It is a difference not to be felt in prices, or in the amount of importations, but it is an amount felt in the French pocket; they are able to put that much more money into their pockets. A Senator sent me a communication from one pro |