[Newspaper]
Publication: The Globe
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
vol. 55, no. 15302, p. 13,19, col. 6,7
WANT FREE OIL
FOR FUEL.
The Manufacturers’ Deputation
Present Their Case at
Ottawa.
PRICE RAISED.
An Inferior Quality of Oil
Furnished.
THE SUPPLY IS SHORT.
The Oil Men's Statement — Doing
Their Best to Serve the Manufacturers —
The Premier’s Reply.
(Special Despatches to The Globe.)
Ottawa, March 3. — An influential deputation, representing manufacturing interests from the Detroit River to Montreal, waited upon the Government to-day and sought relief from the oppression of the Standard Oil Trust. Their case in brief is that the price charged for fuel oil, a necessary raw material, is exorbitant, that the Canadian supply is unequal to the demand, that the import duty is prohibitive, and that nothing will relieve the situation but the immediate transfer by order in Council of fuel oil to the free list. Sir Wilfrid Laurier confessed that the removal of duties was never a heart-breaking operation to him, but he added that there are usually two sides to a question and that both must receive consideration by the Government. The deputation was headed by Mr. A. E. Kemp, President of the Toronto Board of Trade. Mr. Kemp appeared not in his official capacity but as the representative of the Kemp Manufacturing Company; a large user of fuel oil. The following composed the deputation: — F. W. Fearman & Co., Hamilton, represented by Mr. B. Brittain; Ingersoll Packing Co., Ingersoll; Goold Bicycle Co., Brantford, by Mr. J. Kerr Osborne; Verity Plow Works, Brantford; Sydenham Glass Co., Wallaceburg; the McClary Mfg. Co., London, by Col. Gartshore; the Canadian Packing Co., London, by Mr. Ginge; the Gananoque Spring & Axle Co., Gananoque, by Mr. W. G. Matthews; the S. Jones Mfg. Co., Gananoque, by Mr. Chillian Jones; the Geo. Gillies Gananoque, by Mr. A. E. Ormiston; the Diamond Glass Co., Hamilton and Montreal, by Mr. David Williamson; the Canada Switch Co., Montreal, by Mr. K. W. Blackwell, President ; the Wilkinson Plough Co., Toronto, by Mr. E. G. E. Ffolkes; the Kemp Mfg., Co., Toronto, by Mr. A. E. Kemp; the Massey-Harris Co., Limited, Toronto, by Mr. J. Kerr Osborne; the H. A. Lozier Co., Toronto, by Mr. E. R. Thomas; the J. P. Northey Mfg. Co., Toronto; the Dominion Bridge Co., Montreal, by Mr. Geo. E. Evans; the Canadian General Electric Co., Limited, Toronto, by Mr. Frederick Nicholls; the Laing Mfg. Co., Montreal. The members of the Government present were: — Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Bichard Cartwright, Sir Henri Joly, Messrs. Mills, Paterson, Tarte and Blair.
Mr. Kemp's Statement.
Mr. Kemp, in presenting the case, said that he and his fellow-manufacturers were in trouble, and, like a child coming to its parents, they had come to the Government for assistance. The price of fuel oil, he said, had been increasing very much of late. Its use became general about ten years ago, and for a long time the price had been as low as 80 cents a barrel at Petrolea and Sarnia. Latterly $1 15 and $1 25 had been charged, and since the Standard Oil Company has got control of the Canadian output a determination had been manifested to advance the price 20 per cent. higher. Not only had this advance taken place, but manufacturers, he said, had been unable to get a supply of oil. There was not sufficient of it to meet the requirements of the manufacturers, and it could not be brought from the United States because e duty was prohibitive. The rate was two and one-half cents per imperial gallon, equal on an ad valorem basis to 100 per cent, and by the addition of the freight from Ohio the protection enjoyed by the Canadian product was equal to 160 per cent. Mr. Kemp was particular to state that the manufacturers did not want to place themselves in an anomalous position in regard to the duty on this commodity. They felt that they were justified in asking the Government to remove the duty by order in Council, that those industries which were closed up at the present time for lack of fuel oil might continue in operation, and that those that were threatened with an oil famine, but which had not been forced to close down, might suffer no interruption. They felt that they were not interfering with the producer in any sense, because the commodity did not exist in Canada in a sufficiently large quantity to be protected. In short, the demand did not meet the supply. Fuel oil, he explained, was the product of the crude article. It is that which is left after everything that can be extracted has been taken out. The reason of the scarcity is that now uses for by-products have been found, and more of these can be taken out of the crude than formerly. The oil producers offer another product in substitution for the grade of fuel oil that has been used up to the present time, but this was of such a low specific gravity that it could not be used advantageously with the present facilities. Mr. Kemp said that the manufacturers would not be before the Government if it could be shown that what they were asking would interfere in any way with the owners of the oil wells. They would be willing that the owners should have a fair average ad valorem rate of protection, taking the tariff as a whole. If oil were put on the free list, the Canadian producer would have a protection of 40 per cent, by reason of the freight rate from Ohio. It was a well-known fact, he said, that the Canadian oil fields could supply only about two-thirds of the crude oil required in Canada, and that the other one-third had to be brought from the United States. The manufacturers would not have appeared before the Government if they had been able to get plenty of oil, but the supply had been cut off.
Mr. Mills — As a consumer, you asking for free trade?
Mr. Kemp — We are asking what the Government, I think, will concede is fair. We ask that the product which is our raw material shall be obtainable provided it does not interfere in any sense with the producer in Canada.
As a Protectionist.
Mr. J. K. Osborne, speaking for the Massey-Harris Company, introduced his remarks by saying that personally he was a protectionist, and he thought he voiced the sentiments of the deputation generally when he said that they did not desire to do anything that would in any way hurt any other industry in Canada. He placed the consumption of fuel oil in Canada at about 1,500,000 gallons representing a value of about $50,000, which, he said, was a mere bagatelle to the Standard Oil Company. They would not, he believed, object to a removal of the duty, excepting, perhaps, that it might involve a loss of prestige.
Sir Richard Cartwright — You stated a moment ago that you were a protectionist. Is there any class of protectionists who would object to the removal of the duty or who would suffer by it?
Mr. Osborne — I do not think anybody would suffer. I am quite willing that proper protection should be placed on this article. In the meantime, the protection is 150 per cent. as compared with the 20 per cent. which we enjoy on our finished product. Mr. Osborne, continuing, said that his firm was extremely busy , as they were filled up with foreign orders. they gave employment to 2,000 men. They had advanced the wages all around 10 per cent, but if they could not get a supply of fuel oil it would be necessary to close their factory. If the relief were to be effective it must be immediate.
Mr. Evans, representing the Dominion Bridge Company, read a letter from the head office, saying that they had been unable for a week to get enough fuel oil, and that they had been obliged to order a carload from Buffalo at eight cents. They added that unless relief were afforded they would have to close the works.
No Substitute Available.
Mr. Thompson, speaking for the Lozier Company, said that coal could not be made a substitute for fuel oil in the process of brazing bicycle joints, "If any industry in Canada," he said, "is hurt, let us have an average protection. but if sufficient of the product cannot be procured in this country then let us get it at the prices our competitors in the United States pay. In addition to the price to our competitors in the United States we have to pay the freight from Ohio. The oil is piped from Lima to Toledo at a rate which is hardly worth considering, while we are charged a heavy freight rate."
Col. Gartshore of London explained how impossible it was to substitute coal for fuel oil in the process of manufacturing enamel ware, because it was necessary to have combustion without smoke. The oil at present supplied is from 32 to 35 degrees gravity, but the Standard Oil Company seeks to substitute a baser product, which is almost of the consistency of tar, and which cannot be run through the pipes provided for fuel oil now supplied.
Mr. Williamson, representing the Diamond Glass Company of Montreal and Toronto, said that the factories of his company had to be occasionally shut down for half a day for want of fuel oil, so scarce had the article become.
Producers Not Notified.
Sir Richard Cartwright asked Mr. Kemp if he had had any communication with any of the oil producers in Lambton or Middlesex.
Col. Gartshore, answering the question, said that he did not know that the producers were an independent body, free from the influence of the Standard Oil Company.
Sir Richard Cartwright — Were these parties aware of your intention to apply for the removal of the duty?
Col. Gartshore — No, we have not consulted them.
Mr. Frederick Nicholls said that the intention of the deputation to come to Ottawa had been made known through the Toronto papers.
Railway Discrimination.
During a further discussion Mr. Kemp mentioned railway discrimination in rates in favor of the Standard Oil Company. He explained that when he stated the freight rate protection to be equal to 50 per cent, he referred to the normal freight rate and not to the extra discriminatory rate put on recently.
The Oil Map’s Statement.
It is stated as against the views laid before the Government that any inference of oppression or extortion by the oil companies on the question of fuel oil is untrue and unjust; that the comparison of prices is misleading, and that, on the contrary, the sellers have made heavy sacrifices to protect their customers during the present shortage of light oil; that all contracts are being carried out, and where there are no contracts oil is being shipped from Buffalo at a cent per gallon below cost to give the manufacturers time to change their plant to use the heavier oil, which is more economical and can be used by many of the plants with a slight change; that very few manufacturers have sufficient storage to protect them against reasonable delays in shipments. It is also stated that the company of one of the speakers on the deputation has a contract for all their oil until September next, so that he should not be uneasy, and that another of the speakers has his plant now fitted to use the heavier oil and has three cars of it on his siding. It is quite possible the oil manufacturers may not object to the removal or reduction of the fuel oil duty, but the independent crude producers may have a stronger objection.
The Premier’s Reply.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier replying to the deputation, acknowledged the importance of the interests represented. and summarized their request by saying that they asked first that the duty should be removed, and second that it should be removed by order in Council without waiting for the meeting of parliament. He said that he was not certain at the moment whether the Government had the power to remove the duty by order in Council, but the Minister of Justice would have to inquire into that. As for the more important question, whether or not they should remove the duty, he said that it had never broken his heart when duties removed, but there were always two sides to every question, and they would take the matter into their serious consideration. They would endeavor to give the deputation an answer at as early a date as possible.
