Слике страница

S. 4290. An act authorizing the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Burkesville, Cumberland County, Ky. A similar House bill was laid on the table. S. 4289. An act authorizing the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Neelys Ferry, in Cumberland County, Ky. A similar House bill was laid on the table. S. 4288. An act authorizing the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to constrpct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the South Fork of the Cumberland River at Burnside, Pulaski County, Ky. A similar House bill was laid on the table. S. 4293. An act authorizing the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near Creelsboro, in Russell County, Ky. A similar House bill was laid on the table. S. 4294. An act authorizing the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the North Fork of the Cumberland River at or near Burnside, Pulaski County, Ky. A similar House bill was laid on the table. S. 4295. An act authorizing the State Highway Commission, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Cumberland River at or near the mouth of Indian Creek, in Russell County, Ky. A similar House bill was laid on the table.


Mr. WHITE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may have until 12 o'clock to-night to file a conference report on the bill S. 744, the merchant marine bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maine asks unanimous consent that he may have until 12 o'clock to-night to file a conference report on the merchant marine bill. Is there objection?

Mr. LEHLBACH. On what subject did the gentleman say?

Mr. WHITE of Maine. The merchant marine bill.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Reserving the right to object, was the report unanimous?

Mr. WHITE of Maine. It was.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleuman from Maine?

There was no objection.


Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H. R. 12381, with Senate amendments, disagree to the Senate amendments, and ask for a conference.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Minnesota asks unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H. R. 12381, with Senate amendments, disagree to the Senate amend* and ask for a conference. The Clerk will report the ill.

The Clerk read as follows:

A bill (H. R. 12381) granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Regular. Army and Navy, etc., and certain soldiers and sailors of wars other than the Civil War, and to widows of such soldiers and sailors.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection; and the Speaker appointed as conferees on the part of the House Mr. KNUTson, Mr. Robsion of Kentucky, and Mr. HAMMER. Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill H. R. 13563, and that it be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, may we have that bill reported? The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the bill by title. The Clerk read as follows: A bill (H. R. 13563) granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Regular Army and Navy, etc., and certain soldiers and sailors of wars other than the Civil War, and to widows of such soldiers and sailors.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the bill.

The Clerk read the bill.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. SELVIG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECoRD on the tariff and agriculture. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. SELVIG. Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting an opportunity to present to the House of Representatives a very important subject, that of the protective tariff with reference to agriculture, and am glad of the opportunity to do so at this time. In the last campaign I stated that the protection given by the tariff duties on agricultural imports was of very great importance to the farmers of the United States. As my district, the Red River Valley district of Minnesota, is predominantly agricultural, it is an issue of the greatest importance to the welfare and prosperity of those living on the 28,000 farms in the district and to the townspeople who depend upon agriculture for their livelihood. It is interesting to compare the treatment accorded agriculture under the last three tariff acts—the acts of 1913, 1921, and 1922. Of these the acts of 1921 and 1922 were passed by a Republican majority in Congress, while the act of 1913, the Underwood Act, was passed when the Democrats were in power. In this act of 1913 we find that a large number of agricultural imports were placed on the duty-free list. This means that anyone living outside of the United States could freely and without paying an import duty at the port of entry compete directly and on an even basis against the United States farmer. DUTY-Free TArier schedules Let us look at some of these schedules in the 1913 tariff act. The free-of-duty schedule included fresh beef and veal, live cattle, oleo stearin, tallow, fresh goat meat, goats, fresh lamb

. Abraham Silverstein. . Charley Morrow. . Eva M. Wilkinson. . John H. Moore. 12501. Josephine Lemon. . Teresa Bracco. . Logan Wilson. . Charles Steffey. . John Sharp Porter. . Jennie Mae Parkinson Dunkle. . Ebb Hundley. . John L. Lawson. . John O. Lind. . Frank Sutton. . Thomas G. Nesseth. ... William M. Edwards. . Joseph Burton. . William A. Peterson. . Marie Burch. . Rate Forrester. . Thomas Kinnane.

[ocr errors]

121 5 5

and mutton, sheep, bacon and hams, lard, lard compounds and substitutes, fresh pork, pork shoulders and other pork, prepared or preserved, swine, fresh and prepared meats, cream, milk, condensed and evaporated milk, eggs of poultry in the shell, buckwheat, corn, corn flour and meal, rye, rye flour, wheat, cracked wheat, wheat flour, cottonseed, soya beans, alfalfa and clover seeds, potatoes, wool, and vegetable oils.

These free-of-duty schedules opened wide the American markets to foreign importations. In other words, under this Denio-x cratic tariff law the American farmer was placed in direct competition with the farmers of the tropical regions, of the Orient, South America, Europe, and elsewhere.

The rates of duty on other important farm products in the tariff act of 1013 were in many cases so low that very little, if any, protection was afforded the farmers of the United States against disastrous competition from other countries.

Not only were the duty-free imports dumped against our farmers, but there were large importations of agricultural products on which the Democratic tariff rates were unthinkably low. Let me cite a few of these schedules.


In the art of 1913 the duty on butter was only 2% cents per pound. Live poultry was 1 cent per pound. Dead poultry, 2 cents per pound. Egg albumen, dried, 3 cents per pound; frozen, 1 cent per pound. Egg yolk, 10 per cent ad valorem. Dried whole eggs, 10 cents per pound; frozen, 2 cents per pound. Barley, 15 cents per bushel. Oats, 6 cents per bushel. Apples, apricots, berries, peaches, plums, and prunes, 1 cent per pound. Hay, $2 per ton. Straw, 50 cents per ton. Flaxseed. 20 cents per bushel. Sugar and molasses had very low import rates.

The farmers have never been accorded adequate protection by a Democratic tariff. The effects of the 1913 act were not felt during the war years. Commerce on the high seas during war time was almost completely stopped. War-time conditions placed upon the Allies the almost superhuman task of providing food not only for the allied armies but for the civilian population of a large part of Europe as well.


Shortly after the close of the war, In the years 1919 and 1920, the disastrous effects of this tariff policy began to be felt. Millions upon millions of pounds of agricultural products were unloaded at American ports and sold in competition with the products of our deflated farmers, creating an agricultural crisis in the United States unprecedented in its severity.

We recall wool being sold for from 8 to 10 cents per pound. Shiploads of frozen meats arrived at our ports, glutting an already everfllled market. Wheat went down to 84 cents per bushel. Butter was shipped in by the boatloads. The list could be greatly extended, but time does not permit.

The first task confronting the Republican Party, following the election of 1920, was to remedy the serious condition in which our farmers found themselves. Unemployment prevailed, still further aggravating the situation.


The first step was the enactment of the emergency tariff act of 1921 passed after the Republican Party was again in control of the Government. This act raised nearly all of the agricultural schedules and stopped to a great extent the tremendous importations of competitive agricultural products from being marketed in the United States. This emergency tariff act was later followed by the tariff act of 1922, which is now in force.

Limitations of time and space do not permit me to list all the agricultural tariff schedules in the present act, much as I should like to <to so. I shall, however, place in the Rkcobd a table showing the present tariff rates and the rates in the 1913 Underwood Act on those agricultural products in which the farmers of the Middle West are chiefly concerned. Agricultural tariff schedules compared


'Tariff on butter increased by Tariff Commission to 12 cents per pound. 'Tariff on wheat increased by Tariff Commission to 42 cents per busneJ. 1 Cuban duty on %° sugar from Cuba.

It is not maintained that the tariff is fully effective on products or commodities of which we produce an exi>ortable surplus. The surplus control bill which Congress has considered is designed to make the tariff fully effective on such crops and commodities. But even on the so-called surplus crops and products the problem of the American farmer would be vastly aggravated if competitive imports were admitted free of duty or if the rate of duty were less than in the present tariff law.


In studying the agricultural schedules of the 1922 tariff act, I read very carefully the testimony presented in the hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee when the present tariff act was in the course of preparation.

I was impressed in reading these committee hearings with the fact that the farmers and the farm organizations were not fully and adequately represented before those committees. The tariff needs of agriculture were not fully presented when that bill was being drawn. I attribute this condition to the fact that the entire agricultural industry at that time was in a state of postwar confusion and chaos. The national farm organizations had not made a full and complete study of the agricultural tariff schedules. As a result, those engaged in handling food products occupied more of the time before the committee than ditl the actual producers or organizations of producers.

Even if this is true, and the testimony before the committee bears this out, it is also true that the 1922 tariff act is the best one in so far as the agricultural schedules are concerned that was ever placed on the statute books of the United States.


In the light of present-day conditions, however, the 1922 act leaves much to be desired. There must be a readjustmeut of agricultural tariff schedules.

Agricultural conditions were not normal In 1921 when the present tariff act was in the course of preparation. To-day we know more about present trends and conditions. There was not available in 1922 dependable data upon which to base agricultural tariff rates which would afford the protection to American agriculture that the farmers deserved.

There is u widespread need and demand that the agricultural schedules in the existing tariff law be modified to meet more nearly the situation which exists to-day. This demand centers on the necessity of materially increasing the duties on competitive agricultural imports. In all the discussions of the current agricultural problem the adjustment of tariff rates to give the farmers adequate protection is emphasized.


The dairy farmer realizes that about 60 per cent of the imports for 1927 were products directly affecting the sale of our agricultural products and that not only the price of butter, milk, cream, cheese, milk powder, casein, and other milk products but also many other items that are products of the farm were being affected by the fact that there was inadequate tariff protection.

It is generally admitted that world conditions have changed materially since the enactment of the tariff act of 1922. International competition with respect to dairy fats and vegetable oils and the raw materials from which such oils are extracted has become intensified. The present tariff act is no longer adequate to equalize the competitive conditions as between the agricultural producers of the United States and those of foreign countries or to maintain the economic parity of our agricultural producers with other industries.


The tariff act of 1922 is also glaringly defective in that some important commodities among the vegetable oils and ruw materials remain on the free list.

The operation of the tariff act has been further handicapped by its inapplicability to imports of products grown in the Philippine Islands. As a result the huge volume of these imports has tended to weaken and break down the protection which would otherwise be afforded by existing rates on these commodities.

The producers of other agricultural products, as well as the dairy farmers, are facing similar adverse competitive conditions resulting from the same general causes.

A study of the present tariff act reveals that the rates on agricultural products are generally much lower than the rates on manufactured products, that such inequalities have been partly contributory to the subnormal purchasing power of agricultural products, and that from 59 to 62 per cent of the total annual imports into the United States are agricultural products.

In support of the above statement that the rates on agricultural products are generally much lower than the rates on manufactured products, I will place in the Record a table showing certain typical import duties on agricultural and in


Examination also reveals that a most serious cause of the agricultural depression Is the enormous importation of foreign farm products, in competition with the products of the American farms.

In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, the United States imported a total of over $3,500,000.000 worth of raw and manufactured animal and vegetable products. Of this amount, about $1,000,000,000 represented imports of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and other farm products that America can not raise, or for which we can not provide workable substitutes. But this still leaves a balance of $2,500,000,000 of agricultural and animal imports, of the classes that can, to a very large extent, be advantageously grown and produced in the United States, or for which working substitutes can be produced.

Seventy-nine per cent of all American imports last year were of animal and agricultural products and only 21 per cent were of all other products. During the same year $2.350,000,000, or over two-thirds, of all our imports of animal and agricultural products were admitted free of duty.

During the above fiscal year, while the United States imported farm products totaling $3,508,400,000, we exported farm products totaling only $2,510,500,000 or an excess of imports over exports of farm products of practically $1,000,000,000.


We imported, according to available information, $1,500,000,000 more of farm products than we exported of minerals, manufactures, chemicals, and other products.

The above figures should make it plain to everyone that our foreign trade policy, or lack of policy, needs a thorough overhauling.

People who have not given much consideration to the subject may say that we ought to consider our agricultural imports only to the extent of their excess over our agricultural exports. That is not so, because there are many such exports that are sold at a loss, a loss not limited to the quantity of the product exported, not applying only on the small percentage of the export business, but on the entire American production of that commodity.

The amount of our agricultural imports, more than $3,500,000,000, per year is out of all proper proportion to the annual national farm income, now about $10,000,000.000.


Several bills were introduced at this session of Congress which seek to give the American fanners adequate tariff protection. They all propose increased duties on agricultural imports. I am inserting in the Record the schedules of H. R, 9357, that I introduced on January 16, 1928, and a brief synopsis of the bills introduced by Mr. Dickinson of Iowa (II. R. 9765: Mr. Wurzbach, of Texas (H. R. 9856) ; and Mr. Manlove, of Missouri (H. R. 11416). Many other members of tlie House have introduced bills aiming to correct the present inequality in protection afforded agriculture.

Tariff bill (H. R. 9,V,-) introduced ly Hon. C. O. Selvlg



111 the Dickinson bill (H. K. 0765) the import rate per pound on tattle is increased from 1% and 2 cents to 3 and 4 cents; fresh veal and beef from 3 cents to 6 cents; tallow from onehalf cent to 3 cents; oleo oil from 1 cent to 3 cents; dry cattle hides from free list to 5 cents; wet cattle hides from free list to 4 cents; dry calfskins from free list to 16 cents; wet calfskins from free list to 10 cents; swine and fresh pork from one-half cent to 3 cents; bacon and hams from 2 cents to 4 cents; lard from 1 cent to 2 cents; meat extracts from 15 cents to 30 cents; corn from 15 cents to 30 cents per bushel.

Cocoa or cacao beans are made dutiable at 3 cents per pound; oilcake, 2 cents; coconut oil, palm oil, palm-kernel oil, and peanut oil, each at 4 cents per pound.

The Munlove bill (H. R. 11416) includes, with slight changes, the livestock schedules listed above in the Dickinson bill, and the dairy and poultry schedules listed alwve in the Selvig bill. In addition it increases the tariff on vegetables, fruits, potatoes, hay, and straw. The schedules of the Manlove bill were printed in full in the Recoud, March 1. 3928, pages 3892 and 3893.

The Wurzbach bill (H. R. 9850) includes peanuts, walnuts, pecans, onions, garlic, tomatoes, tomato paste, vegetables, Jute and bagging for cotton, gunny cloth, and similar fabrics.

The Timberlake resolution (H. J. Res. 214) would limit the importation of sugar from the Philippine Islands to 500,000 tons annually to protect our American cane and beet-sugar growers.

These bills all have the same objective. They are supplementary to each other and present a well-thought-out program for giving the American farmers a more equitable measure of protection against foreign imports of farm and food products.


In this connection I wish to say a word about the much-discussed McMaster resolution. This resolution passed by the Senate had no significance as to tariff revision, except that it carried a threat of downward revision to those interested in the industrial schedules of the tariff law. It directed a revision of the tariff downward only. Before we resort to that we must try to attain equality between industry and agriculture by revising the agricultural schedules upward.

There may be some industrial schedules that can stand a downward revision, but we should proceed very carefully, with full consideration, and not in spite or chagrin, for we may destroy valuable industries and cause unnecessary unemployment of labor.

American industrial labor is the very best customer of the American farmer, and we must take no step that will have any tendency to impoverish labor. Holding these views, I voted against the McMaster resolution, and was happy to note that those distinguished western leaders of agricultural thought,

Senators Mcnary and Goodinq, voted against it on the Senate side.


Congress now faces the duty of speedily enacting increased agricultural tariff schedules into law. Not to do so places our American farmers at the mercy of foreign producers. The importation of vegetable oils is a menace to our dairy and livestock farmers that but very few fully realize to-day.

This importation is increasing yearly. In many cases these oil-producing products are admitted free of duty, including vast imports from the Philippines. Enormous quantities pay a low duty—so low that it does not appreciably affect the volume of imports. American-made dairy products, especially butter, are seriously menaced through the competition by margarine made from coconut oil, soya-bean oil, sesame oil, whale oil, palm-kernel oil, perilla oil, or other tropical and oriental oils which can be laid down at our doors at 6 or 7 or 8 cents a pound after paying ocean freight and big profits to importers.

The labor which produces the materials and gathers the copra or soya bean or other oil-bearing seeds will work for a few cents an hour or a handful of silver for a month. I shall cite specific figures regarding this later.


This is the ever-present menace that confronts the producers of the health-giving vitamins, absolutely essential to human growth and indispensible to growing children, contained in butter, which is the most valuable and purest edible fat known to science.

Let us look at the figures of importations of these vegetable oils for 1926:

Prepared nnd unprepared coconut oil, admitted free from Pounds

the Philippines 592,000,000

Tung oil 101. 550. 000

Soya-bean oil 17, 403. 815

Peanuts, Imported for oil 120,158, 000

Various other oils 84, 202.000

Vegetable lard substitutes, margarine, and other products made from these duty-free imports strike directly at our hog raisers and dairy farmers. This situation must be remedied at once.

Capital furnished by United States financiers Is invested in foreign lauds where, with the cheap labor of the Orient and the Tropics, it is used to increase the annual production of these commodities, much of which is intended for importation into the United States. Our own citizens and financiers in many instances help to forge the weapon which is being used tellingly and with disastrous effects against our own farmers.

In this connection I will insert in the Record a table showing the materials used in the manufacture of oleomargarine from 1916 to 1926:

[ocr errors][merged small][table]

Division of Statistical and Historical Research. 11)16-1919, Institute of Margarin Manufacturers; 1920-1928, annual reports of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Vegetable oils also cut down the corn market. Soaps, oleomargarine, lard substitutes, and other vegetable oil products can be made in part from corn oil. Instead, these products are mostly made from duty-free vegetable oils. Our corn production should be pr.otee.ted so that the surplus can be utilized for domestic consumption.


Most of our pt-oplc are agreed that American agriculture should receive the utmost encouragement not only from our

own Government, but also from the financiers of the land. We need not go far back in history to note what happens when agriculture is demoralized aud when industry is permitted to have the upper hand.

An impoverished rural population gives no promise of sustained purchasing power. Abject poverty in our rural areas can not but induce low standards elsewhere.

Our plea is for a balanced production both in industry and in agriculture. To secure this our farmers must be given adeqnate protection against the products of low-cost, low-standard competition.

I stated at the beginning that the present tariff act gives to the dairy and livestock farmers the best and most effective protection ever accorded that industry. In spite of this, however, there were imported, during 1926, 60,000,000 dozen c?gs, 62.400,000 pounds of cheese, 62.000,000 pounds of meats, 22,000,000 pounds of hides, and 334,000,000 pounds of wool into the United States in competition against our own farmers. I will place in the Record a more complete table of agricultural imports and the present trend of imports.

Sheep raising in the United States was restored as a result of th.1 1922 tariff act, but we are still importing nearly one-half the wool consumed.


The present tariff on butter has been of great benefit to our dairy farmers. Please bear in mind tliat this tariff was only 3*4 cents per pound under the Democratic tariff. It was raised to~8 cents per pound under the Republican tariff of 1!)22 and later increased to 12 cents per pound by the order of the President, following an exhaustive investigation by the Tariff Commission. My colleagues in the House from Minnesota were active in securing this increase, which was put into effect in 1926.


The agricultural problem will be greatly alleviated when the acreage and man power required for producing these vast quantities of agricultural products that are annually imported are used for that purpose instead of for producing surplus crops of wheat, oats, barley, rye, and the other products in excess of our domestic requirements.

The tariff bills heretofore mentioned will, If enacted into law, remedy to a large degree the unequal status of the farmer who pays the costs of running his farm on a domestic price basis and at the same time is forced to meet the price of his foreign competitors on a world market basis when he sells his products.

These bills also remove from the free list the directly competitive vegetable oils and provide in place tariff duties that will be adequately protective. Restricting these importations will increase the effective demand for lard produced right here in the United States, as well as for dairy fats, cottonseed oil, corn oil, and peanut and soya-bean oil, all of which are produced in this country.

By limiting the importation of Cuban blackstrap molasses now used in preparing stock-food mixtures, the demand for corn will be increased and a market for 50,000,000 bushels annually will be created.


The tariff on corn should be doubled. The tariff on dairy products should be increased up to a rate with an ad valorem equivalent to at least 40 per cent. This is less than the average rate that industry enjoys.

The importation of meats for consumption should be restricted entirely, thereby discouraging the export of American capital for the purpose of exploitation and of increasing foreign production of meat products financed by American money and intended for import into the United States.


Increase the tariff on flax and linseed oil, and prohibit the importation of mixtures of linseed and other oils, which enable the importer to avoid payment of the present duty on linseed oil. This will result in placing at least 2,000,000 additional acres in flax production, thereby reducing the acreage in wheat and other small grains and decreasing the production of surplus crops.

Encourage the production of starch from potatoes and from corn by placing a prohibitive duty on imported starch.

Give the American farmer a protective duty on hides and skins. The imports of these last year were valued at $112,856,146.


It has been well said that the surplus does not come chiefly from American farmers. We import our surplus. Ilere is a partial list:

Peanut oil and low-grade eggs from China. Coconut oil from the Philippines. Cattle hides and flax from Argentina and Canada. Remember that one-third of our hides and onelialf of our flax are imported.

Cheese from Switzerland and Italy. Eight hundred thousand eows were displaced by our dairy imports in 1926. Wool from Australia. The flip of 26,000,000 sheep was unloaded at our ports of entry in 1926. It is well to call to mind that onehalf our total wool consumption is imported. Silk from Japan.

Fruit, nuts, eggs, vegetables, rice, and many other products from all the corners of the world.

One billion five hundred million dollars' worth of competitive imports were sold in the United States in 1926.

The competition of these imports lowered the price of every important food product in the United States.

It forced us to export heavily to foreign markets, which cheapened the entire output of our American farmers. I will place in the Record here a table showing imports into the United State** of competing commodities for 1926 and 1927:

Imports' of competing commodities, J9t6 and 19ft



'General imports.

: Excludes grapes, bananas, and apples.

Compiled from Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce Qt>the United States June issue, 1927.


Before closing I wish to refer briefly to the wages paid in competing agricultural countries, as this gives an additional reason for extending to our American farmers adequate protective rates on agricultural imports. Dairy products are imported from Denmark. Cheese from Switzerland. Many agricultural Imports come from Italy and also from China. I will confine the discussion to the wages of farm workers in those countries.


The average daily wages of Danish farm workers permanently employed and boarding themselves were recently reported. In 1913 the average per day was 67 cents; in 1919-20, $1.18; in 1920-21, $1.29; in 1921-22, $1.33; in 1922-23, $1.01; in 1923-24, 92 cents; in 1924-25, $1.02.


In Italy the average wages paid agricultural workers in 1914 wa's 43 cents per day. In 1921, 60 cents per day.


In Switzerland the average wages of farm workers in 1925 is indicated by the following:

Milker, per week, $4.39; horseman, $4.12; plowman, $3.05; hired man, $1.38; hired woman, $2.21; day laborer, at harvest (without board and lodging), per day, $1.55; other than at harvest time, $1.32 per day.


Lnbor is plentiful and consequently cheap in China, according to the August, 1921, Monthly Labor Review. In the Shanghai district an able-bodied male receives on an average 24 cents per day. In the Nanking district, 8 cents to 21 cents per day. In the Peking district, 3 cents to 34 cents per day. In the TaiYuen district. 6 cents to 20 cents per day. In the Amoy district, 17 cents to 34 cents per day. Women laborers receive approximately one-half to two-thirds of the wages paid to the men.

« ПретходнаНастави »