In the case of oats it will be noted that the farmer received only 39.9 cents a bushel,. which was about the same as the foreigner's price, 39.5.

In the case of rice, the farmer was getting an average price of 2.73, which was practically the same again as the foreigner was getting-namely, 2.69. And in the case of wheat, the farmer received 91.5 cents as compared with the foreign price of 91.6.

In no one of these cases can it be said that the American farmer is getting any benefit from the protective feature of our tariff system, but that whatever advantage was to be had from the system was absorbed by the middleman. It is true that the middleman should be allowed something for his work and for the expense of transportation, but for the commodities mentioned he would be well repaid both for his services and the cost of transportation with a remuneration of 5 per cent on the domestic producer's price, instead of the 21 per cent he now gets in the cases of wheat and oats, the 60 per cent he gets in the case of corn, and the 70 per cent he gets in the case of rice.

The foreign price of potatoes was for the same period 80.9 cents per bushel, which is seen to be below the consumer's price of $1.05 by just about the amount of the tariff, 25 cents. But the American farmer who gets only 63.2 cents a bushel is very far from being the beneficiary of the tariff rate which was imposed to protect him. The truth is in all these and in many other instances that the wrong man is being protected, and there is no way to prevent it except by changing the system.

Again it will be noted that the foreign price of hay averaged $8.23 per ton for the period under examination, and the ultimate consumer was paying $19. The tariff rate is $4 per ton, which added to the foreign price would make it $12.23. In this case the farmer gets an average of $12.51 per ton, which gives him the full benefit of the protection as intended; but there is the same wide discrepancy between the price paid to the farmer and the price paid by the ultimate consumer, which is unreasonably excessive.

In the case of sugar there is some excuse for the middleman, as he not only distributes the product but refines it. Practically all the sugar imported into this country is known as raw sugar. The average foreign price for this was for the period mentioned 2.45 cents a pound, and the average duty collected is about 1.3 cents, which added to the foreign price makes the domestic price of imported raw sugar 3.75 cents per pound. The domestic producer received an average of 3.79 cents per pound, which gives him the full benefit of the protection as intended, but the refiner adds on 1.23 cents more for the cost of refining and distribution, making the price to the ultimate consumer 5.02 cents. In this case the domestic sugar planters do really get the protection they were meant to have, but the refiners have so combined and dominated the market that they can and do "tax the traffic for all it will bear." If a balanced tariff and excise duty were placed on sugar there would be some inducement for the foreigner to send us refined sugar, which he could and would do at a price very much less than the trust now compels us to pay. Why is not the ultimate consumer of more consequence to the welfare and prosperity of the country than the Louisiana planter, and therefore why should not this be done?

Column III of the main schedule shows that the Government collects comparatively little income from cereals and hay, and yet the very existence of the tariff on these items compels the consumer to pay an excess price to the domestic producer or the middleman amounting to 66 per cent and 50 per cent, respectively. The same income could be collected for the Government by taxing the total consumption of these items at the rates of seven one-hundredths per cent and four one-hundredths per cent, respectively (as shown in Column IX), which tax would amount to 1 cent per capita in each case (as shown in Column XII) instead of $7.82 per capita and $2.66 per capita, respectively (as shown in Coulmn VI). On items where the rate is so small it would seem wise to remove the tariff entirely and to levy the amount of income thereby lost to the Government on some other commodity which is already returning a substantial income. The cost of collecting these taxes will be much less if collections are concentrated on a comparatively few items or commodities than if they are scattered over many. By adopting a balanced tariff and excise system it will make no difference to the domestic producers whether their particular commodity is one to bear a tax or not, since all will be on the same footing with regard to competition with the foreigner.

This whole question is practically summed up in the last two columns of the Schedule, XI and XII. Each individual consumer is paying annually for the support of the Government the amounts opposite each item in Column XII, and is further taxed to provide a bounty for certain domestic manufacturers or producers the amounts opposite each item in column XI. Because the Government collects 1 cent per capita on the importation of cereals our grain and commission merchants are enabled to collect for their own pockets $7.81 per capita; because the Government collects 39 cents on the importation of manufactured cotton goods the baron manufacturers in this line (who now hold in reserve an average of surplus 63 per cent on their total capi

talization) are enabled to collect for their own pockets a bounty of $2.43; because the Government collects 1 cent per capita on the annual importation of hay, our farmers and those who handle the product are thereby enabled to divide a bounty of $2.65; because the Government collects 13 cents per capita on the annual importations of steel and iron manufactures, our captains of these industries are thereby enabled to collect for their own pockets $4.05; and because the Government collects 22 cents on the annual importations of manufactured woolens, the domestic manufacturers in this line are enabled to collect for themselves $2.60 per capita of the population.

Will anybody dare say, after the recent revelations of conditions existing in the cotton and textile industries of this country, that the workers themselves receive even the remotest benefit from the tariff schedules designed to uplift them? In fact, is there one single industry in this country, or any country, where workmen are voluntarily paid one penny more wages than their employers are compelled by one means or another to give them? Does anybody at this late date cherish the delusion that, because a protective tariff permits protected industries to pay higher wages than are paid in industries that are not protected, or where there is no tariff, the captains of these protected industries are voluntarily doing it?

But the actual situation of the ultimate consumer is much worse than is here indicated, because of the opportunity for combination which the protective system affords. The prices he pays are in most instances considerably higher than the foreign prices with the duty added. Everybody is familiar with cases in the steel industry, the machinery business, the typewriter trade, the clock and watch business, the beef trade, the hog trade, the oil trade, and many others where the American manufacturer or producer is plying a highly remunerative trade by selling his product to the foreigner in a foreign country at a price much below that which he charges his own neighbor. It is not for us to blame these individuals for taking advantage of their opportunity to control the domestic market. The ultimate consumer has no grievance against the protected manufacturer or producer-his complaint is against the system. Our Government led the way by eliminating foreign competition, and the monopolist is merely following along the same path in trying to eliminate domestic competition also.

The time has come to change the system.

Very respectfully, yours,

WM. W. CREHORE, 30 Church Street, New York City.

WM. W. CREHORE, 30 Church Street, New York City.

HOME CONDITIONS IN NEW YORK CITY.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,
Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

NEW YORK, January 30, 1913.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: The East Side Club of the city of New York, organized for the purpose of improving the condition of the residents of that portion of the city known as the East Side"-which comprises the territory below Fourteenth Street and east of the Bowery-numbering approximately 1,000,000, desires to present the following facts to your honorable body:"

Nowhere in the world is there a more industrious, energetic, and frugal body of people, yet, in spite of the fact that they are mainly employed in protected industries, their wages are meager and fall far below the amount necessary for their proper support, and in consequence many of them are badly housed and poorly clothed, a fact plainly visible to anyone who may take a walk through the district; and the records of the philanthropic societies which care for many of them will prove that they are inadequately fed.

That our brief may be concise we have confined our evidence to but two of the trades in which the residents of the district are engaged-the garment makers, numbering some 50,000, and the shirt-waist makers, numbering about 35,000-and below is a table showing rates of wages, number of hours employed per day, and number of months employed per year.

Nonunion shops work 11 hours per day, and wages are not so high in shirt-waist trade.

We desire to particularly call the attention of the committee to the fact that the periods of employment in these trades are but 7 and 8 months, respectively, per year, and that during the period of nonemployment the operatives are unable to obtain work in other vocations, and, consequently, at the beginning of each working season, they have a burden of debt which takes the greater portion of the employed season to pay off.

HOUSING CONDITIONS.

While there are various causes for the high rents which are charged in the district, many of which would not be removed by a reduction of the tariff, nevertheless we subjoin a statement to show your honorable body the degree that the tariff on building materials increases the cost of housing.

The houses of this district are mainly of the tenement variety four, five, and six stories high, and subdivided for the use of many families-frequently families of 5 to 10 persons are crowded in 3 or 4 rooms. Most of them were built before the present law went into effect, and are entirely unfit for human occupancy. They are without proper ventilation, contain many dark interior rooms, and have not the sanitary arrangements necessary to preserve health. For apartments in this class of houses tenants are required to pay rents entirely beyond their means, and which in many cases compel them to take boarders, and thus further crowd themselves in accommodations which are insufficient for their own families. The scale of rents