The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-26

enemicals. oils and paints; the imports under this schedule amounted to S3l,- | Ooo, 900 and the gross consumption or | articles named in this section amounted to 3so4. .ooo. 900. making the per centage | of imports to gross consumption only 5 l-l0 per cent. In the same way es- timating each sch edule of the tariff bill from the same report, I nnd that Schedule B. Earths. Earthenware and Glassware. the imports were 1-10 per cent: Schedule c. Metals and the Man l ufactures of. were, 1 1-10 per cent: Schedule D. Wood and the manufac- lures of, were 1-10 per cent; Schedule l E, Sugar. Molasses and the manufac- lures of, were 1s l-1o per cent; Sched- | uie F, Tobacco and the manufactures of. were 6 2-1o per cent; Schedule H, Spirits. Wines and other Beverages. were . B-10 per cent: Schedule J, Flax. Hemp and Jute and the manufactures | of, were 2S. 1-10 per cent; Schedule K. Wool and the manufactures of, were $ 5-10 per cent; Schedule L, Silk and SILK Goods. were 25 3-10 per cent; Schedule M, Pulp, Paper and Books. I were 2 1-10 per cent; Schedule N, Sun- dries, were 5-S-10 per cent, and articles manufactured in whole or part not specifically provided for in the enumer- ated schedules but imported, the per | ton amounted to little over 2-10 of per cont
 "In order to avoid questions of du- pltcation as far as possible and at the lsame time ascertain the prohibitive tendency of the present tariff laws. ] have selected the following figures from the special reports of the census on manufactures for 1905, Part 8. which shows that cotton manufactures, con- paring the same articles In each case. showed an importation in the year 1880 of $33,000.000 as compared to the I domestic production of $ll5.000,000. or a per centage of foreign importation of 2s per cent; that in 1880. the imports amounted to 331, 100000, the domestic production to t1s2.0oo.ooo and the per centage of foreign imports to 16 S-lO per cent: in 1890 the per centage of i'm ports was II 1-10 per cent. and in 1900, 10 per cent. In 1905 the imports amounted to $%2.000.o00 and the domes- tic production to 3400. 900. 900; the per centage of importation was g 7-10 per cent. In 1860, the importation of wool en manufactures, exclusive of duplica- ton. amounted to 58 per cent; in 1890 to 20 9-10 per cent, and In 1905 to 4-10 per cent
 Importation of silk.
 'In 1860 the importation of silk man ufactures amounted to 800 per cent and in 1880 to 7S per cent and In 1905 to 1e 1-10 per cent. The importation of leather for the last. three censuses varies from 61o per cent to l-10 per cent in 1905; from 1870 to 1905 the importation of lumber, excluding du- plications. varied from 1 s-10 per cent to s10 per cent. showing the lumber and leather goods have been protected by prohibitive tariff rates for many years past. In 1880 the per centage of importations of glass amounted to 24 per cent. in 1890 to 8 per cent. and 1905 to +-lo per cent. These figures clearly demonstrate the fact that the Dingley bill Is not a protective bill or a revenue bill. but in most of its lead ing features Is a prohibitive bill.
 Tn order to cure the evils of a pro- hibitive tarin there Is only way In which 1t can be accomplished and that Is by reducing the rates of particular commodities to point where a req sonable amount of importations are al . lowed and where fair competition Is encouraged. With 90 per cent of the American market assured to the Amer ican producer. most assuTedly 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 l covered by the Dingley tarin sch edules. would produce all the revenue that the needs of the country require and at the same time prevent the great corpo- rations of America from forming com binations behind prohibitive tariff walls that produce monopolies.
 The criticism that I make as to the bill presented by the majority members of the Ways and Means Committee is that 1t does not accomplish this result. that 1t does not reduce the rates to a revenue and fairly competitive basis. which I hope to be able to point out later on in my argument by compari- son of the rates on particular articles enumerated In the new bill.
 Principal Argument.
 The principal argument that has all ways been made by the protective in terests in favor of prohibitive duties, Is that 1t protected American labor but the facts are very clear that there Is hardly an industry protected by the Dingley 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 meth ods of conducting business, the efflcien- cy of American labor is far in excess of that of most foreign labor and that as a ruIc the unit or costs less in this country than 1t does abroad; of course. when 1t comes to competi- ton 1t is not the daily wage that de- termines the ability to compete but the amount of wages that enter into each unit of production.
 'I find in the report of the Secretary of Internal Affairs of the State of Pennsylvania, very interesting and an accurate tabulation of statistics of manufacturers (Offlcial Document, No g, page 69.
 These documents show that the combined production of steel work |, and rolling mills for the year 1907 for the State of Pennsylvania, amounted to 12.s53.00 gross tons at a total val untion of s504.167.000. The average yearly earnings of persons employed in the steel works and rolling mills are shown to be s663.S0 per year in the mills of Pennsylvania. The two great foreign competitors of this country ir iron and steel production are England and Germany. It is conceded by all that the wages of Germany are lower than those of England.
 Iron Workers Wages.
 The report of MT Charles M. Pep per, special agent of the Department of Commerce and Labor. shows thai the annual wage of the iron and stee workers of Germany is litte more thar