20 THECUBAREVIEW 



from many places of Public Domain is an improvement of same by creating deeper 

 water if removed from waterways and accordingly reverts to a saving in expenditures 

 by the government in thus improving. 



Article LII. Imported salt already pays an import duty sufficient to protect home 

 industry and any change in the tax on imported salt should be considered in connection 

 with the Imports Tariff thereby eliminating double taxation on the same commodity. 



It is the opinion of this Chamber that home industries producing products com- 

 petitive of similar imported products should not be taxed, but that these home industries 

 should be encouraged. 



Furthermore inasmuch as salt is frequently packed in containers of much smaller 

 size than 83 kilos it is obviously unfair to make a tax of 20 cents per bag, when same 

 would be a very large proportionate cost of the value of the commodity itself. 



Article LIII. The tax proposed on coffee roasting establishments is unjustly 

 burdening a single industry, particularly the small companies, firms, corporations or 

 individuals engaged in such line of business, thereby killing competition, protecting the 

 building up of monopoly to the detriment of small interests, and gradually eliminating 

 said small interests. 



Article LIV. The proposed taxation on cutting of wood, etc., provided in this 

 article is a form of taxation difficult to check by the government, easy to evade, and 

 creative of much expense by the government in collection and not productive of sufficient 

 net revenue commensurate with the increased production cost to those paying this tax. 

 It places tax upon lumber from mills equalling approximately 4 per cent, of the valuation 

 of the commodity, which is in addition to a 1 per cent. Sales Tax thereon, and should 

 be entirely removed from the Bill. 



Article LV. — Tax o« Ftiel Oil. 



Protest is made against imposing any additional taxation on fuel oil that is imported 

 into Cuba under the law of July 4, 1917, for the following reasons: 



(A) The ifijnstice and burden of stick taxation to fnel oil marketitig companies. 



Neither coal nor fuel oil are commercially produced in Cuba and under the 

 present import tariff coal is admitted free of duty, whereas fuel oil pays 1/10 cent per 

 gallon, thereby creating, on competitive products, a differential against fuel oil equivalent 

 to 10 cents per ton of coal. 



With the cost of coal delivered shipside Cuban Ports today, which price will in 

 the future be lower because of reduction in railroad freight rates and mining wages, 

 in United States, already promulgated but not yet effective on coal in Cuba and the 

 reduced water transportation cost from United States to Cuba, Fuel Oil marketing 

 companies under existing taxation, including the aforesaid differential, are unable to 

 compete with coal and are today and have during the past year lost business, and 

 the prospect in the future is for a further reduction of their business, due to coal 

 competition and the burden of existing taxation against oil. The combined business 

 of the oil companies from time of starting operations in Cuba to date in the marketing 

 of fuel oil shows not only no profit, but an actual monetary loss which cash deficit 

 has placed same in debt. 



The introduction of fuel oil into Cuba was solicited in the year 1917 not by the 

 oil companies but by the consumers of fuel due to the impossibility of obtaining 

 sufficient coal to operate the industries of Cuba and make the sugar crop of 1917-18 

 and such coal as was available was obtained at extremely high costs. 



The cost of facilities and the cost of operation and maintenance thereof required 

 for marketing coal are comparatively small, compared with fuel oil which latter requires: 

 (1) larger area of land, (2) large steel or concrete storage tanks, (3) pipe lines, (4) 

 pumping plants and their auxiliaries, (5) residences for labor and operators, (6) tank 

 cars, tank trucks, barges, and coastwise tank ships, all of which are owned by the 

 marketing companies and represent, exclusive of land valuations, not less than $5,700,000. 



The proposed tax creates an additional differential against fuel oil equivalent to 



