Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1909-12-23
LABOR IS LEFT OUT
The HIGH TARIFF men FAIL To
DIVIDE With LABOR.
Claim That Wage Garner Gains by
High Duties Is Put on the Defen.
Sive. Unique Experiment Tried
in Australia to Give Workers a
Share,

WASHINGTON, d. c., Dec. ga
During the recent tariff making, the
weak point in the argument of the
high prOtectiOnists was their failure
to show conclusively that part of the
benefit of the tariff is passed along
to labor. At the most the ultra pro-
tectionists have been able to show
only that the high protective rates
work indirectly in their benefits to
labor. But never has this claim of
the high protectionists been so much
on the defensive as during the past
summer. And one great industrial
institution, the Pittsburg Glass Com
pany, frankly admitted that it want
ed the increased duty for the bene-
fit of its stockholders, not for its en-
ployees. With regard to labor con-
ditions President w. Fl. Tafts new
commission may be expected to bring
forth many interesting facts, for it is
not disguised even by federal eX-
perts that the protected industries of
the United States may learn things
about hours of labor even from free
trade England.
In the United States no effort has
been made to enact legislation which
would make sure that labor would
receive it's proper benefit from the
tariff Congress has been content to
trust to the benevolence of manufac
turers and to that general prosper
ity which a high tariff is alleged to
bring. Consequently there has been
no. enthusiasm to emulate in this
country that unique tariff experiment
which has been tried by Australia.
That progressive colony of England
enacted a protective tariff designed
to encourage domestic manufacture
ing, just as the tariff of the United
States. But Australia took definite
steps to make sure that the tariff
benefits would be passed along to
labor, in fair measure.
Almost simultaneously with the en-
actment of the customs tariff law, the
Austrian parliament put through
bill establishing an excise tax upon
agricultural implements manufact-
ured in Australia. This class of man
ufactures had been well protected un-
der the customs tariff act.
The excise,or internal revenue tax,
was made about half the amount of
the customs tariff for similar articles.
going into Australia might pay a
tariff of So, while a plow of equal
value made in Australia would pay
an internal revenue tax of 81. Thus
the manufacturer was given the bene-
fit of 81 as protection. and this bene-
fit he had whatever his attitude to-
wards labor.
But it was possible for the agri-
cultural implement industry to obtain
tthe entire amount of the tarlH as
lection, providing it could show that
it honestly was dividing the increas-
ed profits with it's working men. This
was done through the remission OF
the excise tax. The excise law it
self provided that under certain cir
cumstances, the law should not be
enforced in individual cases.
To obtain the entire remission OF
the internal revenue tax, manufac-
turer must pay his labor a scale
which was Cd declared reasonable
and fair by both houses of parlia-
ment, or CD which was in accord
ance with an award of the courts or
arbitration of Australia Of CD which
was in accordance with an indus
trial agreement entered into between
EMPLOYERS and employees and pub,
licly filed according to the provisions
of the compulsory arbitration act; or
(4) which had been taken before a
court and been legally declared fair
and reasonable.
The same general principal of maxi
ing sure that a favored industry
passed along the benefit was follow
ed in legislation placing bounty
upon manufactures of steel. To en-
courage the manufacture of iron and
steel the Australian parliament Of
fered a reward; but it prescribed that
no award of bounty should be made
to a manufacturer of steel or iron
whose rate of wages was below the
standard prescribed by governmental
authority, or, in the absence of a
fixed governmental standard, was be-
low the standard of wages regularly
paid in the same general locality, or
which had been declared by a court
not to be fair.
Probable flaws would be found by
constitutional lawyers with COM
plete adoption Of the Australian eX-
else law in this country. But at the
very least 1t suggests new prlnc1-
pie which ought fairly and properly
to be applied in future tariff legisla-
ton. To say the least, the most amp
ly protected of industries in this
country are not conspicuous for liber-
al wages, REASONABLE @urs and free
dom from child and woman labor.
Rather the reverse is the case. Why
should not the American Congress
see to it by direct legislation that
the protected industries pass fair
proportion of the tariff benefits
along?