Minister at Brussels to express the "thanks of this government to the Belgian Government for removing these only remaining instances of commercial discrimination against the United States."65

EXTENSION OF PREFERENTIAL RATES TO THE UNITED STATES BY BRAZIL

The Brazilian Ambassador notified the Secretary of State at Washington on January 22, 1909, that his government had renewed its reduction of twenty per cent on American flour and had given the same reduction on other products exported to Brazil from the United States during 1909.66

After the passage of the Tariff Act of 1909, the governments of Brazil and the United States devised a scheme of mutual concessions, with the result that the United States received tariff reductions and, in return, Brazil became entitled to the minimum rates. Ambassador Dudley, from the American Embassy at Petropolis, on January 16 and 17, 1910, notified the Secretary of State that the President of the United States of Brazil, by an executive order of the 15th instant, had continued and extended the list of American articles and products which were to enjoy preferential tariff treatment. A twenty per cent differential tariff reduction was to be allowed to the United States during 1910, and the list of favored articles now included alarm clocks, cement, corsets, dried fruits, desks, and furniture for schools. The bargaining provisions of the 1909 Act were thus utilized to procure a preferential treatment for American products.67

SETTLEMENT OF CONTROVERSY OVER ADMISSION OF AMERICAN MEAT PRODUCTS TO AUSTRIA

As a direct result of the tariff negotiations the government of Austria-Hungary granted its conventional rates to the United States in exchange for the 1909 minimum tariff provisions. A dispatch from the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated at Vienna March 23, 1910, transmitted by the American Embassy, informed the United States Government that American meat products would henceforth be admitted into Austria-Hungary

5 See U. S. Foreign Relations, 1910, pp. 9–17.

ee Ibid., 1909 p. 40.

67 Ibid., 1910, p. 121.

provided the exported products had been previously inspected according to the laws of the United States regulating the inspection of meats.68

RESTORATION BY GREECE OF ITS FORMER RATES TO THE UNITED STATES ON LUBRICATING OILS

The Tariff negotiations of 1910 with Greece resulted in the restoration, by that country, of the earlier rates on lubricating and cotton-seed oils imported from the United States. A reduction of fifty per cent was accomplished.""

C. THE UNDERWOOD-SIMMONS TARIFF ACT OF 1913

The new Democrat c administration in 1913, immediately upon obtaining control of the government, prepared to revise the tariff, and provision was made for placing potatoes, wheat and its products on the free list.

The Republican platform declaration in the year 1912 had asserted under the caption "Tariff Policy and Pledge of the Republican Party":

"The Republican tariff policy has been of the greatest benefit to the country, developing our resources, diversifying our industries, and protecting our workmen against competition with cheaper labor abroad, thus establishing for our wage-earners the American standard of living."

This pledge largely influenced the Republican speakers when discussions of the tariff were held in Congress in the year 1913. This is clearly evidenced by the speakers from the floor of the House, on the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Bill (H. R. 3321), to reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes."

66

ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATS TO ESTABLISH ANY TARIFF PRINCIPLES

In deploring the measure, Mr. Mondell, of Wyoming, addressed the House of Representatives on April 23, 1913, and complained

68 See House Document No. 956, 61st Cong., Ses. II, pp. 10-12.

69 Ibid., p. 12.

of the failure of the Democrats in the Tariff Bill to establish any principles which should lie at the bottom of any tariff legislation. On the other hand, he claimed that a "higher tariff such as that under which the United States had been living had established a condition and a standard of living, of education, of opportunity, of ambition above that of any other people." He suggested further that it would be a simple matter to lower these standards by enacting the proposed tariff measure into law. He believed that the advocates of the Republican tariff policies had always acted on the theory that an American laborer should receive a higher wage than his foreign competitor and that all tariff rates had been influenced by this assumption.70

KEIR HARDIE CONSIDERS THAT HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING AND WAGES LEAD TO SELF-RESPECT Of Laborer

As representative of one of the greatest agricultural districts in the country, Mr. Helgesen of North Dakota on the same day, vigorously protested against the proposed bill. In support of his opposition he quoted Mr. Keir Hardie, a labor leader of England, who had observed conditions in the United States under protection and found that

"Life out there, especially in the West, has more freedom than at home, and the very fact of wages being high leads to a greater self-respect and a higher all-around standard of living. Men walk with more independence. in their gait than they do with us, and there are opportunities, generally speaking, for getting on there which do not exist here." 71

OPPOSITION TO BILL BASED ON FEAR OF LOWERING Standard OF LIVING

Again, Mr. Hayes, of California, at the same time (April 23, 1913,) strongly voiced his objections to the Underwood-Simmons Tariff and concluded his remarks by praising the efforts of organized labor in shortening the hours of labor and "bettering the condition of the American working man and woman " and he

70 See Congressional Record, 63rd Cong., Vol. L, p. 343.

71 Ibid., p. 344.

claimed that primarily the protective tariff had made this result possible. He further concluded:

"When that protection is withdrawn the condition of the American artisan will retrograde and will be no better than is that of his fellow in Great Britain." 72

FORDNEY OPPOSES DEMOCRATIC TARIFF BECAUSE OF ITS TENDENCY TO LOWER THE STANDARD OF LIVING

Taking up the cudgels for the Republicans, Mr. Fordney, of Michigan, on the same date, in the strongest terms, opposed the passage of the Underwood Bill as being detrimental to the American standard of living, and asked the Democratic supporters, amidst the applause of the Republicans:

"How can you meet the competition of that cheap labor in foreign countries unless you force the American standard of living and the American standard of wages down to the level of the cheap labor of the Orient and of Europe?" 73

Following up the Republican attack, Mr. J. Hampton Moore, of Pennsylvania, on April 25, 1913, advanced the view that the Democratic Party had squarely faced the issue of the Republican protective policies, the American wage standard had been raised beyond the standards of the world and that now it is threatened to be overthrown by this policy. He concluded with the remark that the Republican platform of 1912—

"had reaffirmed its previous position of protecting our
working men against competition with cheaper labor
abroad, thus establishing for our wage-earners the Ameri-
can standard of living." "4

74

OPPOSITION TO BILL BECAUSE OF EFFECT OF THE ORIENTAL STANDARD Of Living on THE AMERICAN WORKMEN

The effect on the cedar shingle industry was the subject of the remarks of Mr. Falconer, of Washington, at this time, in his 72 Congressional Record, 63rd Cong., Vol. L, p. 352.

73 Ibid., p. 404.

74 Ibid., p. 441.

opposition to the proposed new tariff. In part he asserted that if the duty were removed on cedar shingles

the result would be detrimental to the American working man and to his standard of living, as the manufacturer of Washington would be brought into absolute equality with his British Columbia competitor."

In his opinion this would be disastrous, for the reason that the British Columbian employed the labor of Hindus, Japanese and Chinese, and that their methods of living were not satisfactory to the American working man.75

On the other hand, Mr. Summers, of Texas, following the last speaker, argued in favor of the proposed bill, and charged the Republicans with the cry of

"Shield the American laborer from the pauper laborer of Europe

while at the same time the Republican followers filled the factories with thousands

"of pauper laborers brought here to compete with the
American working man on his own soil and to beat down
his standard of living,"

in order that dividends might be greater. He concluded with the statement than an industry which cannot sustain itself without help from the government has no strength to yield for the sustenance of another.76

WELFARE OF THE WORKING MAN JEOPARDIZED IF THIS
MEASURE PASSED

That the manner of living of the working man would be lowered if this bill were enacted into law was the belief of Mr. Browning, of New Jersey, who succeeded the previous speakers. He stated

"It will mean living in one or two rooms instead of living in a whole house. It will mean one suit of clothes instead of three. It will mean few, if any, luxuries."

75 See Congressional Record 63rd Cong., Vol. L,

p. 450.