The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1915-06-04
Underwood Tariff Law in Operation
Long Enough 60 Prove Injury TO
Home Industry.

uOuHt
G. II. Brown, Chairman of the
Hosiery Manufacturers Legislative
Committee, claims that the Under
wood Tariff law was in operation
long enough before the foreign war
period to prove its disasterous effects
on American industry, and we may
expect the injury to be resumed i'm
mediately after the close of the war
Furthermore, many industries have
suffered from increased imports dur
ing the war period.
AS proof of the above statement,
Mr.. Brown offers monthly import
comparisons, using for the purpose
the following thirty-six products,
which are the ones having the most
to fear from foreign competition:
Aluminium Mfs., Aluminium Scrap,
Automobile Parts, Cotton Cloths, Cut
lery, Clocks and Parts, Enameled
Ware, Films and Plates, Fruits and
Nuts, Glassware, Handkerchiefs,
Knit Goods, Laco and Lace Articles,
Leather Gloves, Leather and Tanned
Skins, Nets and Meetings., Oil-cloth
and Linoleum, Paper. Perfumery,
Shingles, Silks, Artificial Silks, Stock
ings Tin-Plato, Watches and Parts,
Wood Pulp, Wool, Wool Mfs., Linon
Yarns, Breadstuffs, Eggs. Fish Meat
and Dairy Products, Seeds, Vege-
tables.
In October 1914, seventeen of these
products showed an increase in i'm
ports of $7,S91,16S over October of
1913. In November 1914, twelve
products showed an increase of 3d.
740,106. In December 1914, the in
crease in eight products was $746,-
222. In January 1915, thirteen pro-
ducts increased s2,69S.627, and Feb
ruary 1915 shows an increase in six
products only, amounting to S725,-
SIS.
Total imports of these products
n February 1915 were s26,2S6, 062.
IN February 1914 they were 39.021,-
! $50, and in February 1913. under
the Payne law, they were S24,799,-
400, showing that notwithsta cding
the war. the imports of these thirty
| six products exceeded the imports in
/ February 1913 under the Payne law,
but the difference Of $12,735. 1SS, be-
! tween the imports in February 1914,
! before the war. and February 1915 in
the war period, shows conclusively
! that the Underwood Law was admit
ting before the war heavy increase
( in competitive merchandise at duty
rates, which we're not Protective or
capable of supplying the government
with necessary funds, which smaller
| imports under the Payne Law did ac-
complish.
During the first year under the
operation of the underwood Law, the
imports of these products were $466,-
179, 400, as against $301,316,451 in
the previous year, under the Payne
| Law. making an increase in imports
of $164, 1903, 009, which chould con-
| vince any fair minded man that the
Underwood Law during its first year
of operation did seriously injure the
American producers of these thirty
six products.
While the imports in February
1915 were but slightly larger than in
February 1913, under the Payne Law
| indicating i'm a measure return to
Protective Tariff conditions, and may
result in some prosperity, it must be
remembered that this prosperity is
due entirely to the foreign war. and
not in any way the result of Demo
cratic policy.
Even il imports under the Under
wood Law, as a result of the foreign
war have fallen to about the same
volume that was admitted under the
/ Pyne Law, we still must contend
/ with the very low prices at which
merchandise enters this market, made
possible by the low rates of duty I'M
der the Underwood Law, and it is a
well-known business fact that the
landing value of foreign merchandise
practically establishes the selling
price in the United States.
|