Page images
PDF
EPUB

was a factor in the formation of the Progressive party in 1912 and the election of the Democrats in that year. The last-named party was pledged to reduction and had emphasized the idea of a "competitive tariff"—that is, the lowering of duties sufficiently to place domestic goods on a competitive basis with foreign. The Underwood tariff of 1913 put iron and steel and raw wool on the free list, and sugar in 1916; certain agricultural products were to come in free and big reductions were made on cotton and woolen goods. Some few advances were made, chiefly in chemicals. Although the Underwood Act left the tariff still highly protective, a real attempt had been made to reduce the cost of living. Any deficiency in revenue was to be supplied by receipts from an income tax, incorporated in the bill and now made constitutional by the Sixteenth Amendment.

American tariffs in the making have been characterized by the most unscientific procedure of political give and take. The need of turning the question over to a group of experts had been recognized in the Tariff Commission of 1882 and the Tariff Board of 1909. Neither of these had been taken seriously by Congress and the latter board was legislated out of existence. In 1916 a new Tariff Commission of six members was created to investigate all questions with reference to tariffs and to submit reports to Congress.

With the conclusion of the war and the return to power of the Republican party in 1920, a radical revision of the tariff was to be expected. Two factors were dominant in its making: first, the agricultural distress following the collapse of the war boom; and second, the voice of economic interests, using the nationalism kindled during the war to give force to their demands, and clamoring for protection of the industries stimulated by the war. To prevent post-war dumping and to meet the demands of the farmers an "emergency" tariff was rushed through a special session of Congress (May 27, 1921); it imposed duties on wheat, corn, meat, wool, and sugar, and was to be kept on the statute books until a more detailed act could be framed. The latter, known as the Fordney-McCumber tariff (passed September 19, 1922), not only returned to the high duties of 1909 and earlier

tariffs, but surpassed them in the high protection given.

Ag? cultural products were protected to a high degree, although th protection was hardly needed and did not affect perceptibly the decline in prices. Hides, however, remained on the free list offset the effects of an absence of tariff on boots and shoes, a omission insisted upon by the farmers. The duties on mant factured goods were fully as high as those on agricultural proċ ucts and of more significance. The duties on iron and steel. omitted in 1912, were re-imposed, and those on textiles, especially silk, were increased. In response to the demands mentione above, the act was particularly concerned with the so-called "wa: babies," especially with the chemical and dyestuff industries, and gave them ample protection. There was much talk during the passage of the act about equalizing "the differences in costs of production in the United States and the competing foreign countries," and for fear that foreign competition might possibly injure the American producer, the President was given power to raise or lower duties not exceeding 50 per cent upon recom mendation of the Tariff Commission. This power given to the President, and the extreme protection conferred by the tariff, are the outstanding features of the act.

NOTES FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

The bases for the study of manufacturing since the Civil War are the census reports, especially Vol. VII of the Twelfth Census of the United States and the Abstract of the Thirteenth Census. As companion volumes of equal value are the Reports on Manufactures for 1905 and 1914. Essential for recent industrial developments, but unwieldy to handle is the Report of the Industrial Commission (19 vols., 1902), which took testimony for two years on general industrial conditions. Extracts from this report are included in the Readings of Bogart and Thompson. A valuable piece of work, beautifully done, is A Graphic Analysis of the Census of Manufacturing 1849-1919, by the National Industrial Conference Board (1923). Excellent chapters of résumé are to be found in E. L. Bogart, Economic History of the United States (new ed., 1922); in Isaac Lippincott, Economic Development of the United States (1922); in L. R. Wells, Industrial History of the United States (1922), and in the old book of C. D. Wright, The Industrial Evolution of the United States (1897). Instructive are the observations of a foreigner, Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, The United States in the Twentieth Century (2d ed., 1907). On the location of industry see Malcolm Kier, Manufacturing Industries in America (1920).

The history of special industries may be traced in encyclopedias, especially

[ocr errors]

the Americana, and in the following books: T. M. Young, The American Cotton Industry (1903); P. H. Nystrom, Textiles (1916); M. T. Copeland, The Cotton Manufacturing Industry in the United States (1912); S. N. D. North, A Century of American Wool Manufacture, 1790-1890 (1895); W. C. Wyckoff, American Silk Manufacture (1880); Flour Milling in the semi-centennial issue of the Northwestern Miller (1923); F. J. Allen, The Shoe Industry (1916); B. E. Hazard, The Organization of the Boot and Shoe Industry in Massachusetts Before 1875 (1921); M. D. Swank, History of the Manufacture of Iron in Ali Ages (2d ed., 1892); H. N. Casson, The Romance of Steel (1907); J. R. Smith. Story of Iron and Steel (1913), and J. V. Woodworth, American Tool Making and Interchangeable Manufacturing (1905).

On the tariff, consult P. Ashley, Modern Tariff History (3d ed., 1920); Edward Stanwood, American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century (1903); F. W. Taussig, Some Aspects of the Tariff Question (1915) and Tariff History of the United States (7th ed., 1923). Also C. W. Wright, Wool Growing and the Tariff; a Study in the Economic History of the United States (1910), Harvard Economic Studies, Vol. V. On the Fordney-McCumber tariff, see F. W. Taussig, The Tariff Act of 1922, and A. H. Cole, The Textile Schedules in the Tariff of 1922, both articles in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. XXXVII, No. 1 (November, 1922), and W. S. Culbertson on The Making of Tariffs, in Yale Review (January, 1923).

SELECTED READINGS

TAUSSIG, F. W., Tariff History of the United States (7th ed.), Part II. LIPPINCOTT, ISAAC, Economic Development of the United States, Chaps. XIX,

XX.

Twelfth Census of the United States, Vol. VII, Chap. II.

Abstract of the Thirteenth Census, pp. 435-469.

BOGART, E. L., and THOMPSON, C. M., Readings in the Economic History of the

United States, Chaps. XXI, XXIII.

CHAPTER XXIV

THE LABOR MOVEMENT

Growth of the Wage Earning Class.-Our economic his tory from the earliest colonial days has been characterized by a "labor problem"; but a "labor movement"—that is, an organized continued effort on the part of wage earners to better their standard of living-necessarily waited upon conditions arising from. the growth in population, the rapid increase in manufacturing and the concentration of population in cities. These effects o the Industrial Revolution were delayed in this country, owing to many causes-scarcity of labor, lack of liquid capital, abundance of rich unoccupied farming land-all tending to direct the energies of the people into rural occupations and delay the era of manufacturing and urban life.

Nevertheless, population grew rapidly, almost doubling every twenty years. The percentage of the total population living in cities of 8,000 or over increased slowly before 1840 and then more rapidly; only 8.5 per cent of the people lived in such cities in 1841, but by 1860 the percentage had risen to 16.1 and by 1920 to 43.8. The years of most rapid growth as shown in the following table correspond closely with the period of greatest activity on the part of labor.

[blocks in formation]

C

If the word urban is used, as it is in the Fourteenth Census, to designate places of 2,500 inhabitants or over, it is found that in 1920 51.4 per cent of the population lived in urban territory as compared with 28.6 per cent in 1880.

Although the growth of urban population has been nationwide, it has been most notable in the manufacturing sections; in 1920 more than two-thirds was contained in three geographic sections-the New England, the Middle Atlantic, and the East North Central states. Rhode Island and Massachusetts each showed over 90 per cent living in towns, New York over 80 per cent, and New Jersey over 70 per cent. The three sections noted above turned out almost three-quarters of the manufactured products of the nation, reckoned in terms of value. The Census of 1850 recorded 957,059 wage earners producing commodities to the value of $1,019,106,616; that of 1889 showed 4,251,535 whose products were valued at $9,372,437,283; the figures of 1914 placed the wage earners at 7,036,247, and the value of the product at $24,246,434,724; and those of 1919 at 9,096,372, and $62,418,078,773.

Other Causes for the Development of the Labor Movement. The rise of a class of wage earners and their concentration in urban communities are the fundamental factors leading to the growth of the labor movement. The increase in manufacturing after the Civil War developed larger business units, usually under the corporate form. This accretion in the power of capital stirred the wage earners to action, especially those skilled workers whose occupations were imperiled by the invention of new machinery. The passing of the small industry in which it was possible to maintain a close personal relationship between employer and employee, and in its place the coming of the corporation with its thousands of owners scattered throughout the country, tended to a lack of understanding between labor and capital and a seeming diversity of interest.

If the new machinery and the growth of mighty business units affected detrimentally the wage earner, they also contained the elements of his salvation. Big factories brought the workers together in cities where they could mingle with their fellows,

« PreviousContinue »