New Britain herald., 1915-09-18

l of April, 1913, when the Payne-Al- l drich law was in operation. It ought l not to be necessary to say that If now
 we import ten dollars worth of goods
 where we imported one dollars worth l under previous policy that instead
 of the nine dollars difference being l manufactured in this country and 1 labor receiving the wages which go with the manufacture of those goods,
 our capital employed in such manu- 1 featuring becomes idle and the labor
 so engaged, unless it can find other
 employment, literally walks the
 street.
 Prices Have Increased. "If there was some compensation 1 for this in the way of a reduction in
 the price of clothing, there might be 1 found, perhaps, sufficient reason for | the change; but that has not been the result. I think I am safe in saying l that no one has bought clothing any | cheaper than they did before the Un- Gerwood tariff bill became a law and I am confident that I am correct in l saying that substantially all of the | staple articles which are used by the l every day citizen have increased in
 price rather than decreased since that i time. The latest figures issued by a government department on the cost
 of living show that there has been a
 larger increase in the cost of living in this country since the Underwood tariff bill became a law than during
 any similar period since 1896. It
 could not be otherwise when one
 stops to look at the facts as they
 exist.
 The entire effort made by the
 democratic party has been to demon
 strate that the manufacturer was
 making unreasonable profits. Some
 times the manufacturer does make
 large profits as a result of fortunate
 purchases of his raw material; some
 times because he develops product
 which meets the popular taste, and, frequently, because he conducts his
 business in such a way that he makes economies where others would fail to obtain as favorable results. There are always men who will succeed in business where others, under almost
 exactly the same circumstances and l conditions, have failed so that it is
 true that some manufacturers have
 made large profits, and, yet, the truth
 Is that the average manufacturer of staple products has not made larger rrofits than have similar manufac- turers abroad and no one familiar
 with investments would advise tho investment of capital in enterprises which were making less profits than those made, for example by our great manufacturing industries in New England. "T have frequently called attention
 to the contention made by democrats
 about the additional cost of a suit of
 c1o ifc
 made by a woolen or worsted manu-
 facturer. These figures would appl.'
 with equal aptitude to any other case and it will illustrate correctly the contention which I now make. A suit of tailor made clothes made from American fabric cost in Boston about $45 This cost is made up of the fol- towing items: The tailors profit, SIP; the union labor price for making the suit, $2O; the commission house profit l on the cloth going into the suit, $5; i tho cost of the buttons, thread, and i Things $2; manufacturers price for the cloth going into the suit, $6; and this $6 includes cost of raw material, ! labor, overhead charges, and manu lecturers profit. A careful inquiry as to the manufacturers profit in such instance convinced me that he d | yard or about forty-eight cents profit on the cost of the cloth going into the $45 suit of clothes; and yet, demo- cratic campaigners have had the effrontry to tell people that if the duty were removed the suit would cost much less If the entire duty har been removed the difference in cost could not have been more than forty y-eight | cents because that was the entire | profit made by the manufacturer of the cloth. But, as a matter of fact, the foreigner has raised the price of his product to correspond to the greater American market so that the foreign producer has been the bene- ficiary rather than the American con- sumer. This contention is amply il- lustrated in innumerable instances and any one of you can prove it by ma king inquiries of your grocer, for example, and compare the prices W hich you are paying for similar goods now and two years ago.
 "we were told that if sugar were put on the free list that it would re- duce the cost of sugar to the con- sumner. The duty on sugar has been reduced; in 1916 it will go on the free list. The reduction has cost the government in the past year s1S,000,- 900 in duties, which will be still fur ther reduced next year, if the law goes | into full effect, S5o,000,000 more; and, yet, the price of sugar is three eighths of a cent pound higher than it was when the Underwood bill be- came a law.
 Tariff Law a Failure.
 without, therefore, any further | , discussion, I think we may say with assurance that the democratic conten- 2 +;o, that they could stimulate foreign |