Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Olney.
Buenos Ayres, February 1, 1897. (Received March 19.)
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 187, of December 31, 1896, with which you inclose a copy of a letter addressed to the Department by Mr. E. F. Skinner, representing the Gulf Coast Lumber Company, in which letter Mr. Skinner states that he is informed that a discriminating tariff exists here against American lumber and in favor of Canadian.
Assuming that the members of the Gulf Coast Lumber Association export yellow pine to this market, I am at a loss to understand the inquiry made by Mr. Skinner, inasmuch as the discriminating duty of which he speaks ceased January 1, 1895.
The discrimination against yellow pine had existed here for several years prior to my arrival in 1894. During that year I devoted my attention toward getting the rate on this class of lumber adjusted in some manner more nearly equitable than the rate then existing.
So that the Department’s correspondent may understand the conditions that existed at that time, the difficulties met with in the effort to get the rates changed, and the result obtained, I beg to call your attention to the inclosures accompanying my No. 49, of August 13, 1894, and [Page 2] especially to Exhibit C of the “table of comparative statistics” therewith (see Foreign Relations, 1894, pp. 7–12); to my No. 63 of October 5, 1894 (see Foreign Relations, 1894, pp. 14–17); and to my No. 74 of November 19, 1894, and my cablegram of January 10, 1895 (see Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 3, 4).
From the above correspondence it will be seen that under the Argentine tariff law of 1895 white-pine lumber paid $4.88 per 1,000 feet; spruce pine, $3.48 per 1,000 feet, and yellow pine, $4.18 per 1,000 feet.
No change in these rates was made in the tariff for 1896 and none has been made in the tariff law for 1897.
The benefits secured to our yellow-pine producers by the success of the legation’s efforts in 1894 to secure an adjustment of values and tariffs as they had for some years applied to white, spruce, and yellow pine may be seen from the following comparative table showing the rates of duty and valuation of the three classes of lumber for 1894 and 1895:
| Year. | Valuation. | Duty | |||
| Sq. meter. | M. ft. | Per cent. | M. feet. | ||
| White pine | 1894 | 0.45 | 41.80 | 5 | 2.14 |
| Do | 1895 | 0.35 | 32.51 | 15 | 4.88 |
| Spruce pine | 1894 | 0.45 | 41.80 | 5 | 2.14 |
| Do | 1895 | 0.25 | 23.22 | 15 | 3.48 |
| Yellow Pine | 1894 | 0.50 | 46.45 | 25 | 11.61 |
| Do | 1895 | 0.30 | 27.87 | 15 | 4.18 |
The result of the change thus made in the pine-lumber schedule is seen in the very large increase shown in the importation of yellow pine into this country since 1895. According to the Lamport and Holt Steamship Company’s shipping list this increase amounted to nearly 20,000,000 feet during 1895.
As I advised you in my No. 186 of January 10, 1896, the duty on oak was reduced 10 per cent in the tariff for 1896. It remains the same under the tariff law for 1897.
I have, etc.,