Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-02-03

the market in the United Staes was
fully. occupied by fmportations from
Singapore and the West Indies. This
situation was created by a ruling
made by customs officers constituting
the paragraph in the Dingley law gov
erning the admission Of canned pine
apple packed in sugar. This decision
operated TO the benefit Of importers
and the foreign producer. This ruling
practically nullified the clause in the
Dingley law imposing a duty of IS per
cent and cent per pound. The I'M
portations Of pineapple under the
Dingley law amounted to approximate
~ 100000 cases year-more than the
entire annual production of the Ha-
waiian islands and three times as
much as our producers were able to
market in the United States. Fully
half Of this Importation came from
SINGAPORE AID was produced by cheap
labor - @ss : - - = IS
beneficial Effect Present Law. e.
The Payne.AIdrich law gave the Ha-
waiian producers relief from this con-
tlition by rewriting the language inn
posing duty on canned pineapple so
that the dut- of SO per cent and l cent
e pound on pineapple packed with
added sugar was not open TO miscon-
structiol: b. 60 sta"''' p 81. -
a The effect Of this legislation was
Immediately to- revive the industry
and we were enabled to market our
,carryovern of nearly cot. 900 cases Of
the 1908 pack, and since then our pack
has increased from $4,000 cases to
] 10000 cases. IL the same relative
protection is maintained, the industry
will continue to grow rapidly.
Probable Effect Of Lowering Present
Duties. .....E s<,..... .4s.s :, e:7.. .s 3
The effect on importations of lower
ing the present duty on canned pine
apples can, best be judged by what ac-
tually happened under the Dingley
law. = 49, 80 'st'sss Z'Fs:i q
AT that time by a ruling constituting
the paragraph affecting pfneapplesI
packed with e sugar iadded as cited
above which pr etically nullified the
intent of the law and lowered the duty
from So per cent with 4 cent per
pound added, to Is per cent nat with
the result as heretofore stated, that
for example, in 1903, more than hall OF
the Hawaiian production remained I'M
marketed. I''.'..'-'' =. - 'T
Comparison Of wages and Conditions.
B We can not compete for cheapness
In production with Singapore, where
the growers and canners are an Chi
nese with common, labor at to 10
cents a daH and foremen and skilled
labor Is cents a day While We pay
in the Hawaiian islands for labor in
our fields and cannertes from S1.lO TO
$1.35 for common male faborers and
SO to So a day for foremen and S. to
So a day for skilled labor and superin-
tendents. =. 81.
The wages Of our labor have In.
creased So per cent IN the last ten
years, and will continue to increase
IN SINGAPORE the wages are station
ary.a We make cornpa rison or wage
conditions with Singapore, because uIi-.
der the operation of the Dingley law,
wien the itnportations were. heavy,
about half the total amount imported
came from Singapore
Practically an the materials We use
in the canning industry are protected
by tariff dtfties, and for this reason
in many instances cost us more than
the same materials cost the produc-
ers Of canned pfineapples in foreign
producing countries. 2 Chief Of these
items is tin-plate, sugar and box
shocks, NAILS, cutlery machinery, farm
implements. rugger gloves, Of which
we use $1,000 to- 5000 per annum, and
various other materials. II. ID
?: 1t would be 1Ianifestly unfair and
unjust to reduce duties, ON our pro-
ducts and leave duties on the ma
terialsf we are compelled TO use.
While our industry is young and un-