The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-03-28

1880 to IS per cent, and in 1905 to 19 1-10 per cent. The importat tion of leather for the last three censuses varies from 6-10 per cent to 1-10 per cent in 1905; from 1870 to 1905 the importation of lumber. ex- cluding Implications, varied from 3-10 per cent to S-10 per cent, showing the lum- Der and leather goods have been protected by prohibtive tariff rates for many years past In 1880 the percentage of importa- tions of glass amounted to 24 per cent, in 1899 to IS per cent and 1905 to z 4-10 per cent These figures clearly demonstrate the fact that the Dingley bill is not a pro- tective bill or revenue bill, but an most of its leading features Is a prohibitve bill
 Cure for Evils.
 In order to cure the evils of a prohibi- tive tariff there is only one way in which 1t can be accomplished and that Is by re- ducing the rates of particular commodi- tiessto a point where a reasonable amount of importations are allowed and where fair competition is encouraged. With 90 per cent of the American market assured to the American producer, most assuredly there is no danger of the industry in which he Is engaged, languishing or being driven out of business by the competitor. On the other hand, an importation of 10 per cent from foreign countries of all the products of American consumption cov- Siob Dy tuc DlH6lty idllI SCituulcSs would produce all the revenue that the needs of the country require. and at the same time prevent the great corporations of America from forming combinations behind prohibitive tariff walls that pro- duce monopoles.
 The criticism that I make as to the bill presented by the majority members of the ways and means committee is that it does not accomplish this result, that it does not reduce the rates to u revenue and fairly competitive basis, which hope to be able to point out later on in my argument by comparison of the rates on particular articles enumerated in the new bill.
 Protection Argument.
 The principal argument that has all ways been made by the protective inter- ests in favor of prohibitive duties is that it protected American labor but the facts are very clear that there Is hardly an industry protected by the Dingey tariff bill where the amount of protection afforded has not been far in excess of the difference between the la bor cost abroad and at home. In the first place, by reason of improved ma- chinery. organization and better methods of conducting business, the efficiency of American labor is far isl excess of that of most foreign labor and that as rule the unit of production costs less in this country than 1t does abroad; of course when it comes to competition it is not the daily wage Cat determines the ability to compete'' but the amount of wages that enter into each unit of pro- duction.
 I find in the report of the Secretary of Internal Affairs of the state of Penn sylvana very interesting and an accu- rate tabulation of statistics of manufac- lures, (Official Document No. g, page 69). These documents show that the combined production of steel works and rolling mills for the year 1907 for the state of Pennsylvania Amounted to 12953. 000l gross tons at a total valuation of $504, .000 The Average yearly earnings of persons employed in the steel works and rolling mills are shown to be $663.S0 per year in the mills of Pennsylvania. The two great foreign competitors of this country in iron and steel production are England and Germany. It is conceded by all that the wages of Germany are lower than those of England. f
 Peppers Report.
 The report of MT. Charles M. Pepper, special agent of the Department of Com merce and Labor. shows that the annual