Imágenes de páginas

Mr. James. Ah, that is it?
Mr. FIELD. It is.
Mr. JAMES. So it is not the tariff ?

Mr. FIELD. No. But if the tariff was removed, we would have this condition, that if we want to go before our employers and get a short reduction in hours, or an increase in wages, the first thing they would say would be, “How can we pay you any more when the tariff is gone? That was your only protection. You know it yourself.” And it would be a fact.

Mr. HARRISON. Excuse me. The employers would tell you that, but you laboring men know better.

Mr. FIELD. No. I will state under oath I believe it true. Mr. HARRISON (interposing). But you said that the organization of labor and not the tariff, raised your wages. So when the employers come to you and say it is the tariff, you know better, don't you ?

Mr. Hill. No; he does not know better.

Mr. HARRISON. If the Canadians were organized, I think they, too, would have a high scale of wages.

Mr. JAMES. So you attribute it to the fact that they are organized ? Mr. FIELD. I do.

Mr. Hill. What effect would the labor unions have in maintaining wages, if there was no demand for their labor ?

Mr. FIELD. It would not have any.

Mr. Hill. And if there was no demand for the products of your industry, or if the product of your industry was reduced so that your labor unions could not take advantage of an opportunity which the tariff may give you, then your labor unions would not control your rate of wages, except under favorable opportunities where they can operate?

Mr. FIELD. Well, I should say yes.

Mr. JAMES (interposing). Now, do the fishermen over there in Nova Scotia have any unions ?

Mr. FIELD. Not to my knowledge. I have been through Nova Scotia several times and observed the fishermen there and in Newfoundland and there was no union there.

Mr. JAMES. That is a good field over there for the labor organizer then ?

Mr. FIELD. I should say so.

Mr. James. Because they have got a tariff act, laborers are working cheaply over there. And I should think the labor people over there would look after that situation.

Mr. FIELD. That would come under the Dominion of Canada labor council, and not under the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. HARRISON. Have you anything further to say, Mr. Field?

Mr. FIELD. Yes. Now, to show that the high rate of wages is not only paid in Gloucester, but on the Pacific coast, I have here a telegram which is 2 years old--almost 2 years old, and that is evidence that it was not framed up to be used on this occasion.

Mr. Harrison. Has it only just been delivered ?
Mr. FIELD. No.


SAN FRANCISCO, Cal., May 14, 1911. ohn P. FIELD,

22 Elm Street, Gloucester: Selected your application. Block cutter and packers' wages, if employed fishyard, $60 a month, with board. If city block room, $20 a month additional, reimbursing expenses board and lodging. Guarantee employment year round and chance for increased wages if proved deserving. We will advance transportation if required. Wire answer our expense.

That shows you gentlemen that even over on the Pacific coast labor conditions are better even than they are in Gloucester; and it affects the whole of the United States.

Mr. JAMES. Well, does this tariff add to the cost of fish?
Mr. FIELD. Does it add to the cost of fish ?
Mr. JAMES. Yes.
Mr. FIELD. Why, yes.

Mr. JAMES. So the people that buy the fish there in Boston, and throughout this country, have to pay this tariff as they buy the fish?

Mr. FIELD. It is only fair to assume
Mr. JAMES. Why, certainly:

Mr. FIELD. Assume that the duty is off, for the benefit of the committee, to see just what effect it will have on the high cost of living. If every man and woman in the United States should eat six large-sized fish balls in a week in every week of the year----which I do not believe is possible; I do not eat six; I do not believe half the members of the committee eat six large fish balls every week. One quarter of a pound of fish will make six large fish balls; and if he eats one quarter of a pound of fish, the duty on a pound of fish would be 14 cents, and one quarter of that would be one quarter of 1 cent plus. Therefore, do you think it is right to stop

Mr. JAMES (interrupting). That would be 20 cents a week, and 52 weeks in the year, it would be $10.40. The duty is a cent and a quarter. How are you reckoning that, Captain ?

Mr. FIELD. Every man and woman eating six large fish balls a week-I am giving you the benefit of that, but you know that half the people in the United States do not eat six fish balls every

week. Mr. JAMES. Well, but those who eat 12 would have to pay that much more? Mr. FIELD. I believe there are few people who eat that many in a

I do not believe you have, any of this committee, eaten that many. The gentleman could eat that many if he was on a bet, or something of that kind. Anyway we will speak for the majority. I do not believe that the majority eat six a week.

Mr. LONGWORTH. And for your benefit I will say I do not believe all of Mr. James's constituents have ever eaten six a week, and his solicitude for the high cost of living is misplaced.

Mr. JAMES. No; we catch all of our own fish, fresh fish, down there; we do not eat the fish balls.

Mr. GARDNER. How much would the saving be if they all ate six a week?

Mr. FIELD. If they ate one-quarter of a pound a week they would save one-quarter of a cent a week, plus.

Mr. JAMES. If a man eats them at all he has got to eat a quarter of a pound.

PARAGRAPH 273_FISH, SMOKED, FROZEN, ETC. Mr. FIELD. Six large fish balls is quite a meal. In the hotel this morning they only served two. Now, gentlemen, is it fair to sacrifice an industry like the fish industry and save one-quarter of a cent a week for the public? Do you think that if it was placed on the official ballot and the American people were given a chance to vote on it, they would vote to do away with the American fisheries or harm the standard of labor wages of the American just to save themselves that one-quarter of a cent plus per week?' I have a better opinion of the American people; I do not think they would.

Mr. HARRISON. Now, Mr. Field, your time has expired, and the committee will take a recess until 2.15 o'clock p. m.

Mr. GARDNER. I will just file these petitions, and I want to state that there is a bounty paid to fishermen in Canada; it is a small bounty:

GLOUCESTER, Mass., January 15, 1913. Hon. AUGUSTUS P. GARDNER,

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. GARDNER: Owing to the disastrous effect the elimination of duty upon fish would have upon the fishing industry of our city, we appeal to you to do everything possible in presenting our case before the Committee on Ways and Means.

I am instructed by a vote of to-day's meeting to ask you to confer with our representative, Mr. A. A. Silva, who will be prepared to give you any information that you may desire in regard to the effect that this will have on our labor movement, as he thoroughly understands the entire situation. Hoping that you will attend to this matter, I beg to remain,

Yours, very truly, (SEAL.)

GEORGE ROBERTS, Secretary Ship Riggers Local Union, No. 14336.

GLOUCESTER, Mass., December 30, 1912. Whereas we, members of Local Union No. 14307, Fish Skinners, Cutters, Trimmers, and Pressmen, American Federation of Labor, of Gloucester, Mass., desire to call to the attention of Congress and to Congressman A. P. Gardner of this district, the fact that we respectfully ask that the American fish workers be protected from the competition of the lower wages paid in foreign countries, by the passage of such a tariff bill as will at least equalize the difference paid in wages here and abroad: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we go on record as a body that we favor such a tariff as will adequately protect the American fish workers, and that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the records of our meeting, and that a copy be sent to Congressman A. P. Gardner and we appeal to him to do everything possible, and place our petition before Congress. (SEAL.)

John E. Souza, Secretary Local 14307, F. S. C. T. & P. of Gloucester, Mass.


Gloucester, Mass., January 19, 1913. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

Resolved, That we wage earners, members of Teamsters Union, Local 266, I. B. of T. C. S. and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, hereby petition your honorable body to protect the fishing interests of Gloucester, Mass., the principal industry of our city, by the retention of a protective tariff high enough to equalize the difference paid in wages in the United States and abroad, to the end that our wages and working condition may be protected from competition of the poorly paid foreign labor; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be spread upon our records, and also a copy of same be presented to Congressman A. P. Gardner by Antoin A. Silva, with a request that same be presented before Congress.



GLOUCESTER, Mass., December 31, 1912. Whereas, the protection of the Fish Industry of Gloucester is a matter of vital im

portance to us who make our living at the industry in the local plants, and, Whereas, the wages paid in foreign countries are so much lower than those paid in the

United States: Therefore be it Resolved, That we, members of Local Union No. 14317, Fish Workers (women), of Gloucester, Mass., hereby petition Congress for such a tariff as will protect our wages and conditions against foreign labor; and be it further

Resolved, That these resolutions be spread upon our records, and a copy be sent to Hon. A. P. Gardner, asking him to do whatever possible to protect our conditions. (SEAL.]

CLEMMIE BURKHART, Secretary Local Union No. 14317.


Gloucester, Mass., January 18, 1913. At a meeting of the Master Mariners' Association held on this date it was unani. mously voted that this association go on record against the reduction of the tariff on green fish and all others.

Capt. Norman A. Ross is a delegate of this association to present this vote to Hon. A. P. Gardner, Congressman from the sixth district.

James H. STAPLETON, Secretary. True copy, attést:

James H. STAPLETON, Secretary.

GLOUCESTER, Mass., January 5, 1912. Whereas the wage earners of the United States are enjoying higher wages and working

shorter hours than those wage earners employed in European and Asiatic countries;

and Whereas the wages and living conditions of American wage earners have been secured

under a tariff law which has protected American industries, thereby giving employment to the American wage earner; Therefore be it

Resolved, That we, the members of Gloucester Teamsters Local Union No. 266 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, hereby petition Congress to protect our employment and scale of wages by the retention of a protective tariff high enough to equalize the difference paid in the wages in the United States and abroad to the end that our wages and working conditions may be protected from competition of the poorly-paid foreign labor; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be spread upon the records of our meeting and a copy sent to Congressman A. P. Gardner with a request that he place the same before Congress.


John F. FOLEY, President.
Willard F. MITCHELL, Secretary, Treasurer.


Boston, Mass., January 20, 1918. Hon. A. P. GARDNER, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: Your letter received and I thank you for the assistance you have promised us. I will be pleased to call upon you if I should happen to go to Washington during the present session.

You will find inclosed a resolution passed by the Teamsters Local Union of Gloucester which I hope may be of some assistance to you at the hearing on the fish industry to-morrow.

Mr. A. A. Silva, whom I understand will appear before the committee, promised me that he would hand you the resolutions passed by the other three union organizations in Gloucester, namely, the fish skinners, cutters and pressmen; the fish workers and the ship riggers.

Mr. Silva was to take these resolutions to you, but if for some reason he did not, I think Mr. T. 0. Marvin, who is at the Willard Hotel, Washington, can give you the original resolutions,

Trusting that the presentation of these resolutions from the organized wage earners will be of value to you, I am, Very truly, yours,

M. J. FLYNN, Secretary.

PARAGRAPH 273_FISH, SMOKED, FROZEN, ETC. The brief which follows was filed with the committee on January 29 1913:





Schedule G, Paragraphs 272 and 273.


House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: This brief is filed in support of the contention that the tariff upon cod, mackerel, herring, and halibut, Schedule G, paragraphs 272 and 273, of the present act, should not be decreased from the present rates.

Rates are now competitive.-We shall show that these rates are upon a competitive basis which has resulted in the regular importation of such fish to a substantial extent and leads to an immediate marked increase in such importations whenever there is any scarcity of the American supply, and yet does not permit the entire destruction of the American fishing industry, which would place American consumers at the mercy of the bounty-paid foreign producers.

We shall show that the present rates not only are on a competitive basis in actual practice, but that the American fisheries could not be carried on without them, as is shown by the fact that there are practically no exports of American cod, mackerel, herring, or halibut, and that in spite of the duties there are substantial imports from foreign countries, which increase whenever the American price shows any tendency to increase.

Present duties are low.–We shall also show that the present duties are far lower than the present average rate of tariff, and are not above the rate necessary to supply necessary revenue for the Government, and are below the average rates on steel and woolen products proposed in the bills passed by the second session of the Sixty-second Congress and vetoed by the President.

We shall also show that the revenue from this tariff is an important item of Government income, and that a decrease of this very moderate tariff would not increase the revenue, but would probably decrease it, as the present tariff is a very slight check on imports, and the revenue from such increase in importation as might result from a tariff reduction would be no more than the loss of revenue from the reduced rate on the present amount of imports, so that no advantage would be gained in revenue.

Industry is deserving.-We shall also show that the American fisheries are not less entitled to protection than any other American industry, and that it would be a foolish and suicidal policy for the American Government to remove or substantially diminish the tariff on the goods produced by the American fishing industry, with the result of decreasing the Government revenue and ruining an industry which has existed from the very beginning of the Government, and which is vitally necessary to prevent the control of this important food product passing into foreigners' hands and the further reduction of our American ships and sailors. In short, we shall show that this moderate tariff upon fisheries is not only valuable as a producer of revenue, but is securing an active competition in this valuable food produce, to the great advantage not only of the producers, but of the consumers, and maintains a class of inhabitants accustomed to the sea.

We shall also show that it is peculiarly a case where there is nothing to be gained by having the business done by other countries. In the case of supplies of ore, coal, and various products which result in the exhaustion of American resources there is something to be said in favor of encouraging the exhaustion of the resources of foreign countries and preserving our own resources for a future time, but in the case of the ocean fisheries it is no advantage to this country that the fish should be caught up by foreign corporations rather than American citizens. To let foreigners catch the fish off our coasts and bring them in here without contributing to the support of our Government on the theory of conserving our resources would be as foolish as to abandon a coal mine in which we have the right to dig and allow foreigners to dig the coal out of it under the impression that we were conserving our resources.

« AnteriorContinuar »