CHAPTER XI

SIXTEEN YEARS OF PROTECTION PRIOR TO THE DEMOCRATIC ERA OF 1913

The necessity for a further protective tariff to maintain the American standard of living as exemplified in the Dingley, Payne-Aldrich, and Underwood-Simmons Acts. The resulting tariff legislation in foreign

countries.

A. DINGLEY TARIFF

In the Republican platform of 1896, one discerns the first official intimation of the belief of that party that a protective tariff immediately benefits the working man, when it states:

"it (the protective tariff) upholds the American stand-
ard of wages for the American working man."

Four years later, the Republican party renews its faith in the wisdom of the policy of protection for American labor and declares in its platform:

"Opportunity to the inventive genius of our people has been secured, and wages in every department of labor maintained at high rates, higher now than ever before, and always distinguishing our working people in their better condition of life from those of any competing country."

On March 18, 1897, a new tariff bill was introduced at a special session of Congress. It provided in Section 3 for two means of tariff bargaining. The first part of the section permitted the President to give specified reductions on articles (including argol, wines and sugar) coming from countries which in their turn would make concessions to the United States. Another part of the section consisted of penalizing provisions at the option of the President, and provided that a duty should be imposed on tea and coffee, which otherwise were free, and levied an additional duty on

hides, when coming from countries deemed to be withholding reasonable tariff treatment from the United States.1

During the framing of this measure, popularly known as the "Dingley Bill," many representations from foreign governments were received by the Department of State and the President, as well as by the committee, relating to different sections of the proposed bill. In some cases there were implied threats by the foreign governments that retaliatory measures would be enacted by them if some of these provisions detrimental to foreign interests finally became law.2

LEGISLATORS FAVOR PROTECTIVE TARIFF TO MAINTAIN

STANDARDS OF LIVING

That the tariff problem was simply a question of labor and wages, was the viewpoint of Hon. John Dalzell of Pennsylvania, when speaking in the House of Representatives on March 25, 1897, in support of the Dingley Bill. He claimed that "a high measure of wages and standard of living are the things which

1 See Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties, Tariff Commission, 1919, p. 198. Also State Papers 92: 1246 (English):

Under Section 3 of the Dingley Act, eight treaties have been negotiated:

2 See (Congressional Record, Vol. XLIV, 61st Cong., 1st Ses., pp. 2537-8-9.)

List of Papers

From the Danish Minister, March 29, 1897.

From the Italian Ambassador, April 4, May 9 and May 26, 1897.

From the Belgian Minister, April 16 and May 30, 1897.

From the Argentine Minister, May 1, 1897.

From the Turkish Minister, May 10, 1897.

From the Japanese Minister, June 3, 1897.

From the Swiss Minister, June 17, 1897.

From the British Ambassador, December 26, 1896, and June 18, 1897.

From the Chinese Minister, June 29, 1897.

From the Austro-Hungarian Minister, May 28, 1897.

From the German Ambassador, April 5, 1897.

From the Consul General of Greece, April 10, 1897.

From the Belgian Minister, May 27, 1897.

From the Swiss Minister, April 29 and May 20, 1897.

From 53 Irish Members of British Parliament, March 17, 1897.

would bring the laborer the necessities of life according to the environment in which he lived." He continued that our wages were such as to maintain an American in an American civilization according to American requirements, and "the social condition and advancement of an individual depends upon his freedom from competition under unequal conditions with a civilization lower than his own."

In comparing conditions in the United States and England, he remarks:

"The civilization of Sheffield is that of low wages, a starved life, rented houses, penury, lack of culture and aspiration; but the civilization of Pittsburg is that of high wages, land proprietorship, free schools, intelligence, and manhood suffrage." "

In approving the proposed Dingley Bill, the Hon. John B. Corliss of Michigan, on March 29, 1897, stated that it had been owing to the McKinley Tariff that the American laborer had been raised to a better social condition and had been enabled to obtain comforts which were enjoyed only by the rich in foreign countries. For those reasons he favored this bill because "it will elevate the masses, grant them employment at good wages, and extend the blessings of prosperity to their families." 4

Hon. John C. Sturtevant of Pennsylvania, on March 31, 1897, speaking in the House of Representatives, contended that the Dingley Bill, if enacted, would restore business to its former prosperity, and give employment to every man who wanted work, and that it would" provide for an increase in the price of labor as the mode of living and civilization advanced." 5

On the same day the Hon. George Edward Foss of Illinois, favored the proposed tariff, resting his support partly on the ground

"That this measure means American wages for American working men, which will give to them and their families the opportunity of enjoying higher standards of

' Congressional Record, 55th Cong., Vol. XXX, Appendix, p. 200.

Ibid., p. 212.

Ibid., p. 107.

living. This, in my judgment, is the strongest argument
in favor of the protective tariff.” 6

Following this train of thought at this same time Hon. Theobald Otjen of Wisconsin, justified his championship of the measure in the following words:

"It should be the policy of the American people to maintain a high standard of wages, wages sufficiently high to enable the American workman to live as a freeman should, and to educate his children, fitting them to become intelligent and patriotic citizens. Free trade in its full application means that the American workman must be reduced to the low standard of living prevailing among the working people abroad." 7

On the same day the Hon. E. D. Crumpacker of Indiana, favored a continuation of a protective tariff, and especially of the measure in question, because the farmers and wage-earners would become the principal beneficiaries. The toiler's cottage had comforts and luxuries unknown a few years before, and he rejoiced "that the standard of living is improving among all classes every year.'

The object of the Dingley Bill, in the opinion of its framer, Mr. Dingley, was "to enlarge the opportunities of labor through the diversification and growth of domestic industries, to elevate the standard of wages and the standard of living, and thus to promote the prosperity of all classes."

NEW INDUSTRIES TAKE THEIR CAPITAL AND LABOR
FROM THE OLD ESTABLISHED CONCERNS

To free traders, the theory that a protective tariff is beneficial to labor because it creates new industries that prior to this time were non-existent, as a long run theory, is false. According to their view, to develop these new industries, labor and capital must be drawn from another source and must come from industries already existing.

• Congressional Record, 55th Cong., Vol. XXX, Appendix, p. 173.

7 Ibid., p. 237.

8 Ibid., p. 271.

9 Ibid., p. 2714.

A tariff, if effective, must cut off imports and, in the long run, exports to the countries affected are necessarily curtailed. Therefore, new industries obtain their labor and capital from the old established industries in the country and not from imports.

To those who hold this doctrine, the effect of a tariff is not to create greater opportunities for labor and capital, but to transfer it from a greater or a more effective industry that is peculiar to that country, into one to which the country is less adapted.

RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MCKINLEY TARIFF POLICY IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE DINGLEY BILL

Mr. Dingley, expounding on his tariff bill in the House of Representatives on July 19, 1897, asserted that the object of a protective policy "was to maintain a high standard of wages and its yokefellow, a high standard of living, for the masses." This statement assumed that the more prosperous a country, the higher the standard of living and wages."10

The Dingley Tariff re-enacted and extended the McKinley Tariff to a high protection basis; re-imposed the duties on wool and increased the duty on woolen goods; lowered rates on cotton goods; and retained the rates of the Wilson Tariff on metals."

ORGANIZED LABOR FAVORS PROTECTIVE POLICY TO
MAINTAIN STANDARD OF LIVING

The American Federation of Labor has never taken a stand for a protective tariff policy for the United States, although it has

10 Congressional Record, Vol. XXX, Appendix, p. 2714.

11 See U. S. Tariff Acts, 1790–1909; Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, G. G. Huebner, Vol. XXIX, p. 500.

Provisions of Dingley Act, July 24, 1897.

Sec. 1 Partial shipping reciprocity may be granted in return for partial shipping rights.

Sec. 3099 per cent re-export drawback.

Sec. 491 Binding twine not on free list if the American product is charged a duty.

Sec. 626 Petroleum not on free list if the American product is charged a duty.