, 1923-08-31
What We Imported

It can be truthfully said that the Fordney
tariff law of 1922 is about the best all around
law on that subject so far drafted and exactly
suits the times and conditions in this country
as did the Mckinley or Dinglcy laws in their
time.
Thirty.nine per cent of our imports for the
fiscal year which ended june ~, 1927, consisted
of raw products, 81 per cent consisted of partly
or wholly manufactured goods, nine per cent con-
sisted of crude foodstuffs and food animals and
IL per cent consisted of manufactured food
stuffs.
Expressed in values we imported in 1929 81
476, 100000 worth of crude materials for use in
manufacturing, compared with 5000 900 900 for
1922, or an increase of GO per cent. This serves
as an Indication of the remarkable activity of
our mills during the fiscal year 1923, all but
three months of which was under the Fordney
tariff law.
Imports of food stuffs in crude condition and
food animals totaled 1852, 900. 900 in value for
1923 compared with $302, 000, 900 in 1922, while
imports of food stuffs partly or wholly manu-.
featured in 1923 totaled $507, 900, 900, compared
with $3.50, 900, 900 in 1922. This should not, how
ever, be taken to indicate an increased COMPETE
ton with domestic food stuffs, since a very high
percentage of these imports consisted of such
non-competing products as coffee, tea, spices,
bananas. certain nuts, oils, cocoanut products
and the like. OF the food stuffs about 81 per cent
were free, comprising the articles Just men.
toned.
Manufactures for further use In manufactur.
ing imported in 1923 totaled Sill, 000, 900, COM
bAt W Ahi Wv ifNsph III tdT DtlOTt, WHllh
manufactures ready for consumption, 1923 to-
tailed SLY 100000 compared with $685., O0G, 900 in
1922. OF the aggregate of these two groups, about
90 per cent or 100000 came in free of duty.
The average ad valorem rate of duty on all i'm.
ports for 1923 was slightly under 10 per cent.
compared with nearly Ia per cent for 1922. The
percentage of dutiable goods in 1923 was 81. and
in 1922, slightly over 81. The average duty rate
on all dutiable imports for 1923 was a trifIe I'M
der 30 per cent, for 1922 a little over 80 per cent.
Since the great bulk of crude imports paid no
duty, and the rates on competing agricultural
products were in general nearly twice those car
ried in the Republican law of 1909, it would seem
that the severest cuts in duty rates applied to
manufactures. Certainly the official figures
point conclusively to the fact that the Fordney
law is by no means a high protective law, but on
the contrary, is the lowest rate law vet drafted
under the protective policy. There is no escape
from the conclusion.
Among the free imports competing with prod
ucts purchased by the farmer may be mentioned
agricultural implements and parts, binding
Irvine, fertilizers of all sorts, building materials
such as brick, cement, stone, timber products,
leather gloves, boots and shoes, harness and sad.
dies and other leather goods, hides from which
leather is made, whetstones and homes, horse.
pads, barbed wire, fuel, etc. The manufacturer,
of course, has received advantages from the FREQ
crude materials and certain compensatory duties
on wool manufactures due to his imports of raw
wool, etc.
The American wageearner has profited by the
larger imports of raw materials to be manufac.
tured in this country by the joint activity of
American labor and American capital.