Page images
PDF
EPUB

In presenting to you the inclosed tables showing the rates of duty needed to equalize the cost of labor between the United States and foreign countries I beg to state that

1. They are based on wages in the United States ranging from $1.25 to $3 as against $1 in foreign countries.

2. They are based on cost of labor here varying from 10 per cent to 90 per cent of the total value of a finished article.

3. They are based on the assumption that American labor employed in manufacturing is on an average 20 per cent more efficient than labor in foreign countries.

In other words, that an American factory employing 100 men will turn out as large a quantity of goods as a foreign factory in the same line of business employing 120 men.

It will be admitted that this is a strictly conservative estimate, considering that superior machinery is generally employed here requiring less help and run at a greater average speed than elsewhere; considering further the improved labor-saving methods generally used by American manufacturers, and last, but not least, the higher intelligence of the American workman.

In respectfully submitting for your thoughtful attention these suggestions, the undersigned begs to add that they are the result not of mere theoretical study, but of the long and practical business experience of an American citizen, who believes in reasonable and fair protection to American industries as long as they need such protection and who has implicit faith in the pledges of both great political parties to revise honestly and thoroughly present tariff rates.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

a Estimated that five American workmen produce as much as six foreign workmen.

[blocks in formation]

An article made in United States costs 20 per cent for labor. Wages in United States are $1.50, against $1 in a foreign country.

Five American workmen produce as much as six foreign workmen. What should be the protective duty to equalize cost of labor?

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

An article made in United States costs 40 per cent for labor. Wages in United States are $2.25, against $1 in a foreign country.

Five American workmen produce as much as six foreign workmen. What should be the protective duty to equalize cost of labor?

[blocks in formation]

EXAMPLE III.

An article made in United States costs 60 per cent for labor. Wages in United States are $3, against $1 in a foreign country. Five American workmen produce as much as six foreign workmen. What should be the protective duty to equalize cost of labor?

[blocks in formation]

HENRY GEORGE, JR., THINKS THAT THE VALUE OF LAND IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR TARIFF ARGUMENT.

Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE,

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 6, 1909.

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: In reading the reports of testimony before your committee in regard to proposed changes in the tariff, I have noticed numerous statements by advocates of higher tariff rates on certain articles to the effect that their demand for excessively high duties was justified by the comparatively high cost of the land on which their products are grown or produced. California fruit growers, Florida tobacco raisers, Missouri barytes miners, Michigan lumbermen, all unite in giving the high price of land as a reason why the present tariff should be retained or higher rates of duty imposed.

Permit me to suggest to your honorable committee that you should give no consideration to pleas for high tariff rates based on the alleged high price of land in this country. If the price of land is high, this fact would seem to show conclusively that the industry using such land must be prosperous, else men would not be willing to pay such high prices for the privilege of engaging in it.

It is, of course, possible that many persons may have paid more for land than it is really worth, but this is not a reason why Congress should legislate for the benefit of unwise speculators in land.

If the necessity for making a profit out of land for which excessive prices have been paid is to govern the enactment of our revenue laws, it would be an easy matter for the owners of land to estimate its value from $500 to $5,000 per acre, thus justifying prohibitive tariffs, under which the Government would receive no revenue.

A careful examination of the testimony in favor of higher duties will show, as demonstrated in my father's work, "Protection, or Free Trade?" that the real beneficiaries of the protective tariff are those persons who have secured possession of such natural resources as our coal lands, timber areas, iron-ore deposits, oil-yielding lands, etc., and that monopoly of these resources is the chief obstacle to the full and fair competition in manufacturing which the founders of the protective system sought to promote.

Yours, respectfully,

HENRY GEORGE, Jr..

LOWER LEVEL OF DUTIES.

THE FORBES LITHOGRAPH COMPANY, BOSTON, MASS., WRITES RELATIVE TO ACTION OF BOSTON MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION.

Hon. SAMUEL W. MCCALL,

185 SUMMER STREET,

Boston, December 30, 1908.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: In connection with the revision of the tariff the vote which was passed by the Boston Merchants' Association at their meeting held in this city on December 16, in our belief, as members of that organization, may be misinterpreted, and we therefore take the liberty of stating the following facts:

Bulletin No. 71, issued by the Boston Merchants' Association and dated December 14, was received by us on the morning of December 16, and this contained, as far as we know, the first intimation the general membership of the association had that the tariff was under consideration by the Boston Merchants' Association. The preamble and vote adopted are as follows:

Preamble. In the eleven years during which the present tariff law has been in force many changes have occurred in the conduct of business and the methods and conditions of production and manufacture.

Some of the duties in this law have been found to be prohibitive rather than protective, and others have been found to be protective beyond the reasonable requirements of a tariff designed to safeguard our enterprise, industry, and labor against undue competition.

Vote. Be it therefore voted that the Boston Merchants' Association advocates a thorough revision of our tariff by a readjustment of the schedules, with the purpose of establishing a lower level of duties than that which now exists.

A substitute motion was offered, containing the same preamble, but proposing that the vote read as follows:

Vote. Be it therefore voted that the Boston Merchants' Association advocates a thorough revision of our tariff by a readjustment of the schedules, with the purpose of correcting any inequalities in the present tariff, and for the purpose of establishing a lower level of duties than that which now exists, where such reduction is warranted. In revising the tariff, we recommend and indorse the principle of giving protection to American products and industries equal to the difference between wages paid in this country and wages paid abroad, plus a reasonable profit to the American producer.

Mr. John C. Cobb, the chairman of the committee presenting the motion as recommended by the directors, was asked to accept the substitute in place of the one prepared by the committee, but he declined to do so on the ground that he believed there was no material

difference between the vote as offered by him and the substitute, and stated that in his opinion the preamble covered the matter in substantially the same form as the substitute vote proposed. We fear this influenced members present to pass the vote as proposed by Mr. Cobb. There was also, of course, the natural reluctance on the part of the members, when they had not sufficient time to consider the matter, to oppose a measure approved by the board of directors. The Boston Post of December 17, 1908, states:

This was the first serious opposition to any measure approved by the board of directors of the Boston Merchants Association.

The membership of the Boston Merchants Association consists of 849 members. You will note from the vote that but 131 voted on the question, less than one-sixth of the membership.

We do not feel that this question should have been taken up in the form that it was by the merchants association and such a vote passed when the committees considering same had not given the interests affected an opportunity to be heard, and we also believe that had a proper time been given after the publication of the proposed vote, so that the members of the association could have considered the matter, the result of the vote would have been different.

You will note that the substitute motion merely qualified the recommendation for establishing a lower level of duties by the words, "where such reduction is warranted," and the addition:

In revising the tariff, we recommend and indorse the principle of giving protection to American products and industries equal to the difference between wages paid in this country and wages paid abroad, plus a reasonable profit to the American producer. This we believe to be good doctrine, having been adopted by the Republican national convention in Chicago and indorsed by Judge Taft in his speech of acceptance.

I am interested in the matter not only as a manufacturer, but I feel a personal responsibility in the subject, as many of our employees asked me before election what ticket I believed it would be for their best interests to support, and I unhesitatingly advised them to vote the Republican ticket because it was pledged to protect their interests; that the tariff was not for the manufacturer any more than it was for the workman, because the tariff is really a tariff for the workman, to protect him from foreign labor, and in our own business we are direct competitors with German lithographers, where the wages paid average only one-quarter of the wages paid in the lithographic trade in the United States.

I have no controversy with the Boston Merchants' Association, realizing the important work they are doing in behalf of our city and State, but think the impression as gathered from the Boston papers of December 17 gives a mistaken idea of the sentiment of the business interests in this city, and I believe they do not wish to establish a lower level of duties than that which now exists, except in those schedules where it has been proven by the facts submitted to the Ways and Means Committee that such reduction is warranted.

Very truly, yours,

THE FORBES LITH. MFG. CO.,
W. II. FORBES, Treasurer.

« PreviousContinue »