Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

JAN 18 190.

American Economist

DEVOTED TO THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.
NEW YORK, JANUARY 14, 1921.

LXVII. No. 2

[blocks in formation]

BOARD OF MANAGERS.

B. A. Van Winkle, Ind. Arthur J. Draper, N. C.
H. C. Lovis, N. Y. W. B. Maddock, N. J.
Frank H. Metcalf, Mass. F. A. Springer, Conn.
H. Sanborn Smith, Ala. W. Warren Barbour, N.Y.
William Sloane, Va. Frank B. Hopewell, Mass.
A..R. Wilson, New York Karl G. Roebling, N. J.
Lyman B. Goff, R. I. Joseph R. Grundy, Pa.
George R. Meyercord, Ill. A. H. Heisey, Ohio
Henry B. Joy, Michigan Joseph Stroock, N. Y.
Chester A. Braman, N. Y.

[blocks in formation]

"Diaphanous Demagogy."

We have always thought that the New York World has a very erroneous conception of the purposes and effects of an adequate Protective Tariff, but now we have the proof. It heads an attack upon the "Fordney Farm Products Tariff Bill," as it calls it, with the heading which appears above and which we adopt as being peculiarly appropriate to its own editorial. Among other things, it says:

Its so-called Protective duties on breadstuffs cannot protect the growers because these prices are fixed in the foreign markets for a surplus American production.

If the said Emergency Tarff measure does not affect the prices of breadstuffs, as the World admits that it will not, then why not let the farmers enjoy the feeling that they have helped themselves in securing what they think is Protection, and what is, as a matter of fact, Protection? The purpose of a Protective Tariff is not to increase the price of commodities, but to give the home market to AmeriThat it will accomplish this purpose the World admits. That it did so under former Tariffs which imposed practically identical rates of duty is susceptible of absolute proof.

cans.

Under all Protective Tariffs of late years wheat has been dutiable at the rate of 25 cents per bushel. Prior to 1913 the greatest imports in any one year had been less than half a million bushels of wheat, with two exceptions. In 1911 there were 509,439 bushels of wheat imported, and in 1912, 2,699,130 bushels. During the latter year, however, 1,275,399 bushels were milled and exported. The probable cause for the increased imports in these two years was the fact that the wheat yield in this country for both 1910 and 1911 was over 100 million bushels short of the yield for 1909.

The Underwood Tariff of 1913 placed wheat on the Free List when imported from any country which does not impose a duty on wheat imported from the United States. Canada did impose a duty until some time in 1917, when the duty was removed. It would not be fair to refer to the imports during the war, for the conditions were different then from what they were prior to the war or since the war has ceased. But it is fair to refer to the huge importations of the past few months when the effect of Free-Trade, unaffected by extraneous conditions, has come into full force. The latest report of wheat importations at hand are those for the month of October last. During that month we imported 9,802,103 bushels of wheat,

$2.00 a Year. Single Copy 5 Cents.

only 46 bushels of which paid duty. Those figures should be published in every paper in the country. It would not be amiss if they should be read from every pulpit. Just imagine the United States importing foreign-grown wheat at the rate of 117 million bushels per year, when the wheat of our own farmers is rotting in the bins! Is it any wonder that the farmers ask for a Protective Tariff and is it any wonder that Congress feels inclined to afford such Protection?

The imposition of an adequate Protective Tariff would shut out most, not all, of this wheat, but it would not add to the market price of American wheat. As the World truly says, the price is fixed in the markets of the world, and not in this country. The purpose of the Tariff is not to add to the price, but to enable the farmers of this country to sell their products at all.

The same thing which is true of wheat is true of all the other products covered by the Emergency Tariff bill. The FreeTrade Underwood Tariff permits the uninterrupted flow into this country of the foreign-grown competing farm products, while the home-grown crops are rotting. If the New York World wishes to further such a condition, then let it keep on in the same un-American line which it has been pursuing. We cannot believe, however, that even the World would pursue such a course to its legitimate end. It is simply, in arguing for its pet heresy, FreeTrade, dealing in "diaphanous demagogy."

Hitting Below the Belt.

While it is probable that few of our readers are familiar with sporting terms, yet all know that "hitting below the belt" is considered to be a foul blow and one in which a true sportsman will not indulge. Yet we find that Free-Traders are quite as unsportsmanlike in their discussion of Tariff matters. When they indulge in rank misrepresentation they are guilty of hitting below the belt. In the prize ring it is allowable to strike hard body blows, or blows upon the head, for the purpose of knocking out an opponent. It would be all right for Free-Traders to deliver as hard blows as they are capable of delivering if they would only stick to the truth.

Judged by this standard, we find the New York Times guilty of hitting below the belt. In its issue of January 11th it attacks the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act which it is probable will be re-enacted by the Congress as an emergency measure. The editorial in question is entitled, "A Protection Trial Balloon," and is full of misrepresentations.

It says that President Taft in his campaign promised "substantial revision downward." What he did promise was revision along needed lines. He specifically said that some rates of duty would need revision upward while others should be revised downward, which is very far from being the statement attributed to him by the New York Times.

The Times says:

Who has forgotten the fine work of upward revision in Schedule I, containing the rates on cotton goods, and the still lovelier specimen of it in the famous or infamous Schedule K, containing woolen rates, which made, for instance, the duty on a low or medium gray suit of woolen clothing from 80 to 100 per cent.?

No Tariff Act has been more lied about than that of 1909, and no Schedule of any Tariff more wilfully and maliciously misrepresented than has been Schedule K. Tariff liars rushed about the country misrepresenting the changes made in the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. As a matter of fact there were as many revisions downward as there were upward. No one who voted for the Act in question need feel any regret for his action. No Tariff can be absolutely perfect, but there has been no better Tariff enacted than the one of 1909.

a

It seemed as if the nether regions were scraped for foul epithets to be applied by Free-Traders to the Schedule K of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. The Schedule K of the Dingley Act nor that of the McKinley Act never came in for one-half the vituperation that was heaped upon that of the Payne-Aldrich Act. That is curious matter and it is due to the fact that someone started to lying about it and the others followed suit without taking the pains to investigate and see what the said Schedule really provided. When the Times intimates that there was any "upward revision" in Schedule K of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909, it makes

a statement which is absolutely and unqualifiedly false. There were only three changes made in the rates of Schedule K in that revision and those changes were all downward.

The changes were covered in paragraphs 375, 377 and 380. Paragraph 375 lowered the rates of duty on what is known as "tops." Paragraph 377 lowered the rates of duty on yarns made wholly or in part of wool and valued at not more than 30 cents per pound. Paragraph 380 contained the following provision not found in the previous Tariff:

[blocks in formation]

taining higher prices, or newspapers interested only in discrediting the law, poured out the vials of their wrath upon the Senators and Members of Congress who had "revised Schedule K upward." Such misrepresentation was contemptible, no matter who engaged in it.

The Times has the grace to admit that the Tariff of 1909 did revise the Tariff downward on "sole leather and leather shoes" and that it did put hides on the Free List. Yes, it did do that and it was about the worst change that was made in the Tariff rates. So far from lowering the prices to the ultimate consumer, the truth is, as everyone who was buying shoes at the time knows, that the • prices of shoes began to rise and that they have not since been lowered to their former level. Why did not the Times inform its readers on that subject?

Why does not the Times remind its readers that never before in the history of the country have foreign products poured into the country in such quantities as within the past year? Why does it not also concede that the prices of commodities were never so high, despite our Free-Trade Tariff which is guaranteed by its proponents to do such wonders in the way of lowering prices to the consuming public? If the New York Times will confine itself to the strict and unvarnished truth in its editorials on the Tariff it will find less to say in support of Free-Trade as well as less to say against an adequate Protective Tariff, the only hope of our prostrate industries.

[blocks in formation]

From the start we have favored the reenactment of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff as an emergency measure. It would carry with it practically the same rates of duty sought to be imposed upon agricultural products by the measure which has passed the House, and it would protect other industries as well.

Representative Watson of Pennsylvania, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, in discussing the need for an Emergency Tariff on the 9th instant made a very clear presentation of the subject, from which we select the following:

"For seven years our Tariff doors have been open, in consequence of which, save during the period of war, the importations have increased to the extent that in the last calendar year they amounted in value to nearly $6,000,000,000. The influx of foreign

made goods is not only crippling our markets for home production but is stopping the most valuable source of revenue.

"A new Tariff measure should be placed upon our statute books at an early date that will be consistent with the chaotic conditions of the money values and the unsettled basis of wages throughout the world. It has been suggested as an emergency measure that Congress re-enact the Payne-Aldrich bill in order to temporarily stabilize our markets and give Protection to domestic production, while a bill is being written to meet in a scientific way the abnormal monetary state of the nation.

"We are passing through a period similar to that of 1857 which followed the Crimean War. The party then in power failed to recognize the need of a Protective policy, the result of which was that a financial panic and a commercial depression prostrated our country to an extent it had not heretofore experienced, and business did not revive until after the enactment of the Morrill Tariff bill in 1861.

"We are confronted with a debt of $7,397.000,000 which will be due within two and one-half years; added to this our ordinary expenses for the same period, estimated at $10,500,000,000, gives some conception of the amount of revenue required.

**

"I have faith that the Republican Congress will so conduct the financial affairs of the nation that our national debt will be paid, save the long-term bonds, within less time than our Civil War debt was liquidated, and that prosperity during the next decade will surpass that following 1865, which had no parallel in the history of civilization."

Sound Tariff Doctrine.

The following very admirable discussion of the Protective Tariff policy is selected from an editorial which appeared in the New York Herald of January 5th:

The American Tariff system is designed not merely to create and foster home production. but to stimulate improvement of process and perfection of results. It must broaden the whole home market and strengthen, not weaken, the general purchasing power.

A duty of 100 per cent. might be required at one stage of the founding or development of an industry, but none at all at another stage. A duty of 10 per cent. or 100 per cent. or 1,000 per cent. for an industry might fail to attain the ideal of this American policy in that industry itself if the very Tariff act did more harm in a second direction than it did or tried to do good in the first direction.

A Tariff duty on wheat reaching to the blue sky, for example, could never sell the American farmer's crops at a fair price if general American industries were allowed by the Tariff makers or compelled by other circumstances to go on the rocks.

If American mills and factories are idle. if American wage earners are out of work, the American farmer cannot sell his crops. Tariff or no Tariff, because his economic salvation, first, last and all the time, depends upon being able to sell in this, our own American market, the greatest and richest in all the world.

Any Tariff to be sound and to make good must never ignore the supreme national factor-the earning power of the whole nation to be spent on the products of the various and varied industries of the nation, farming and all.

[blocks in formation]

Senator Penrose and the
Emergency Tariff.

Senator Penrose has been extensively quoted as being opposed to what is known as the Emergency Tariff bill for the Protection of farm products. He states that his position has been misunderstood. Here is what he says:

"I desire to correct a misunderstanding which seems to have got abroad concerning the status of the so-called emergency Tariff bill. There is really no difference of opinion among Republicans on this measure. There have been those who thought the Tariff question ought to be taken up with the general revenue legislation when a new Congress met with a good working majority in all branches. On the other hand, it is strongly and fairly contended that this measure is an emergency one, urgently needed by certain industries in the country, chiefly those of live stock and agriculture.

"As a consistent Protectionist all my life, in season and out, I have advocated adequate Protective duties for every industry throughout the country, regardless of section. Hence I would be the last man in the country to hesitate about supporting an emergency measure of this kind if in the opinion of my colleagues it is urgently required. I shall therefore support this bill and do what I can to secure its passage. In my belief the rates in the pending bill should be modified somewhat, and if the Senate takes this view I sincerely hope the House will consent to these modifications.

"The impression spread before the public that there is any difference or rivalry between the manufacturing East and the more agricultural South and West on this Tariff bill is absolutely without foundation. The Eastern States are as earnestly in favor of adequate Protection for the farming interests as for any other industry in the country. No one realizes more keenly than I do the importance of agriculture to the prosperity of the country. The conservation of the home market has always been a cardinal doctrine of Protection. As far as I am personally concerned, I represent a State among the foremost in the country in agricultural interests and therefore I certainly am fully alive to the needs of agriculture."

We doubt if anyone is fully satisfied with the bill in question. Chairman Fordney is not and a majority of those who voted for it in the House are not. With them it was simply a question of its passage or the failure of any Protective legislation at this session of Congress. The absolute necessity for affording some Protection for farm products is conceded, the only difference of opinion being the method to pursue. Nor is it so much a question of aiding the farmers themselves, as it is of protecting the interests of the community as a whole. The agricultural interests are the basic industries of the country. On the farms are produced food, fuel and clothing and with out these commodities we cannot live. It is necessary for us to so conserve the farm industries that we shall not as a nation suffer because of the lack of the necessaries of life. The farmer would be foolish if he did not look out for his own interests; the rest of us would be quite as foolish if we should not second his efforts, for our interests are, to a certain extent, identical with those of the farmers.

We have never favored class legislation nor "popgun tariff bills." We have held that the interests of each separate industry should be considered in connection with their relation to other industries. That is, the wool-growing industry should be considered with reference to the wool

manufacturing industries, and other industries as well. No one industry stands alone. But desperate cases often demand heroic treatment and the farm industries are mighty sick. We admit that we would prefer to see one of our former Protective Tariffs re-enacted as an emergency measure, but if that shall prove impossible at the present time, it may be advisable to enact the Emergency Tariff bill which has already passed the House. We have no criticism to offer with reference to the rates of duty provided in said bill, believing them to be no higher than the present conditions demand.

Texas Tariff Twaddle.

Conceding that the imposition of a Protective Tariff on wheat will not increase its market value, the Dallas, Texas, News adds:

A Tariff duty might have the effect of deflecting some of the Canadian and Argentine wheat that is now coming into this market to the markets of Europe. But to the extent that it did that, it would crowd our wheat out of the markets of Europe, and it is in those markets that our wheat growers must find buyers for a considerable part of their crop. Competition at home might be

lessened, but at the cost of making it greater in neutral markets. It is not apparent, therefore, that it would make the wheat growers much if any better off to levy a duty on wheat.

The News falls into the error of believing that the primary purpose of a Protective Tariff is to increase the price of the protected article. That is not its purpose. Its primary purpose is to give the home market to the domestic producer. Wheat is coming into this country now at the rate of upwards of three million bushels per month, or nearly three times the rate at which it came in during the fiscal year 1919. We are selling abroad all the wheat for which we can find a market and still we have a great surplus. The problem is not to add thirty cents per bushel to the price of domestic wheat, but to sell it all. Canadian farmers receive a greater net price for wheat sold in this country than for that which is sold in England or the continent of Europe. Our farmers are in exactly the same position in this respect as are the Canadian farmers. It costs less to market it at home than abroad and the transportation charges are much smaller. It is a great economic waste to import wheat at the rate of 36 million bushels per year while we are unable to sell what we raise ourselves. Perhaps the Free-Trade Dallas News can satisfy itself that such a proceeding is economically sound, but we think it will find it difficult to find many domestic producers to agree.

If an adequate Protective rate of duty be given to wheat the result will be that we shall buy more than 30 million more bushels more of wheat grown in the United States and buy that many fewer bushels grown in other countries. We will give the trade to our own farmers, and they stand greatly in need of such patronage. Nevertheless, there will be

some

importations of foreign grown wheat, just as there always have been. A Protective Tariff is not a prohibitive Tariff. It simply gives the domestic producer an advantage, but it does not prevent anyone who prefers foreign products to indulge his fancy and buy them. He will have to pay more for the foreign product on account of the Tariff, but he will not have to pay more for the domestic product.

It is not true that the imposition of a Protective Tariff on wheat will add to the competition abroad. Other nations sell abroad all that they can under present conditions. Because of lower freight rates and because of preferential duties and because of depreciated currencies they have the advantage of Americans in the foreign markets. Because of these conditions and because of our present Free-Trade Tariff Americans cannot sell their entire crop at home nor abroad. Instead it is rotting in the granaries while foreign grown wheat is pouring into our market by the millions of bushels each month.

The American market belongs to Americans. What they cannot supply will necessarily be purchased abroad.

Is German Wallpaper News Print?

The Treasury authorities in Washington now have before them for consideration a complaint, filed by certain domestic interests, charging that German wallpaper is now being permitted entry into the country free of duty as newsprint paper. The manufacturers responsible for this charge recently imported into the country a test consignment of the wallpaper in question properly invoiced as "wallpaper." The New York appraising officers, it is declared, deliberately changed the classification to newsprint paper and permitted entry free from the payment of Tariff charges.

It is presumed that the appraising officers referred to in the complaint constitute the so-called Classification Committee that has been holding forth at the United States Appraiser's Stores for many months, fixing the classification of various imports without proper authority from Congress.

The law clearly provides for cases of this kind and permits the importer, if dissatisfied, to protest to the customs tribunals specially created for this purpose. If the Classification Committee is to decide that a certain imported article is entitled to free entry, the domestic manufacturers of the country have no recourse. They are compelled to stand by and watch articles, in which there is a doubt as to their proper classification, passed into the country free of duty without the opportunity of presenting the issue before the customs tribunals for judicial determination.

It is high time that the domestic manufacturer be given some consideration in the matter of testing issues of duty classi

fication before the Board of United States General Appraisers and the United States Court of Customs Appeals? The law provides that, when a question of doubt exists, the government is to be given the benefit-in other words, that the higher duty is to be assessed, leaving it to the importer to seek relief from the tribunals created at heavy expense for that purpose. When customs officers persist, however, in disregarding this policy and take the law into their own hands it is time that all option in the matter be taken from their hands and the privilege of initiating a test case be granted to the domestic manufacturer as well as to the importer.

As to the German wallpaper, perhaps the Customs Division of the Treasury Department will see the light and advise the New York appraising officers accordingly. If not, the domestic manufacturers will undoubtedly have to be patient until after March 4th, when the Classification Committee and all other unauthorized agencies inconsistent with fair customs administration will be abolished

0

Southern Tariff Congress.

The meeting of the Second Southern Tariff Congress which has been called to meet in Atlanta, Georgia, Jan. 27, 28 and 29th, is expected to be one of the most important events in the industrial life of the South. It is perhaps the first time in history that a movement has been inaugurated that has met the unanimous approval of the political, agricultural, industrial and commercial interests of all sections.

The Southern Tariff Congress which was organized at New Orleans, October 11th, with Jno. H. Kirby, prominent lumberman of Texas and leader of industrial thought of the South, as president, is a non-partisan organization having for its purpose, according to its declaration of principles, the discussion of the Tariff and its relation to Southern productive industry.

At its initial meeting at New Orleans the Congress declared in favor of a Tariff on the raw material of the South that would equalize the cost of production between this country and foreign countries whose products are flooding the American markets to the destruction of our own industries.

At the Atlanta meeting of the body, figures will be assembled showing the condition of different lines of productive industry which will later form the basis of recommendations to Congress concernng a permanent Tariff policy.

The call for the Atlanta meeting was signed by the Governors of practically every Southern State and was joined in by the leading Chambers of Commerce and Commissioners of Agriculture throughout the South.

Governor Coolidge who will be the principal speaker, will be entertained by Governor Hugh M. Dorsey of Georgia, who is a personal friend, during his stay in Georgia.

Laying Rough Hands on Imports.

The Mechanics and Metals National Bank of New York is not one of which much is written in the press, but it seems to be associated through its apparently interlocking directorate with one of the great international banking institutions of the city. Its interests would therefore appear to be substantially identical with those of that bank. Our attention has been called to the January circular of the former bank which still further confirms the suspicion of the identity of interests of the two banks.

This circular is merely propaganda in favor of Free-Trade and a plea for the international banking interests which have organized corporations to engage in the foreign trade without having taken into consideration the fact that it is poor policy to judge peace-time conditions by those obtaining during a world war. Having built upon the sand it is probably only natural that they should be anxious to place all the stable industries possible under their feet so that they may sink no further into the sand.

The Mechanics and Metals National Bank, in its said circular, says in part the following:

"The whole question of a higher Tariff is one which, at this time, should be entered upon with the greatest thought and care. It is premature to fear that Europe will 'flood' us with her goods, when, in the ten months ended October of this year, Europe sent us only $1,078,000,000 of goods to offset the $3,721,000,000 of goods we sent to Europe. The outside world, principally Europe, owes a net debt to us of some $15,000,000,000, which, for interest alone-when that is fully established-will call for payment of roundly $750,000,000 a year. Unless we are to extend the volume of our foreign loans (taking no repayment on the old) for the next few years, our total purchases of goods and services from abroad must exceed our total sales by that amount.

"It cannot be too often repeated that the ultimate means of payment for exports must be in imports. If we wish to maintain our export trade, our problem now is not how to put obstacles in the way of imports, but how to encourage them. By just as much as we succeed in cutting off our imports, we must, in the long run, cut off our exports.

*

*

*

*

"This does not mean that the Tariff is without merit as a revenue measure, or that we may not with advantage impose higher Protective duties on certain articles. A number of our young industries might with profit be protected during the next few years to give an opportunity to prove whether they can eventually compete on equal terms with foreign producers. But the last thing we can afford to do is to attempt with a rough hand to keep out foreign goods generally. That would be a direct blow at every exporter and every consumer in the country.

"The Tariff was undoubtedly useful when we were still a debtor nation. It helped to make us more of an industrial nation and less of an agricultural one. It helped to diversify our output and strengthened us as an integral and self-contained nation. But we have now reached a new stage of industrial development. We are now the world's foremost creditor nation. Our exports are far outrunning our imports. The new Tariff should be framed to meet the new conditions."

Trade, but we must remind the author that an often repeated false statement is not changed into the truth by such reiteration. Furthermore, the circular is selfcontradictory. It says:

"It cannot be too often repeated that the ultimate means of payment for exports must be in imports."

That is not true, as the circular itself shows when it states that:

"Our exports are far outrunning our imports."

Our experts have for very many years far outrun our imports. Taking the fortyyear period prior to our entry into the late war, namely: from 1877 to 1916, inclusive, our exports have been millions of dollars per year in excess of our imports, with only three exceptions. During the years 1888, 1889 and 1893, all following the election of a Free-Trade Administration, our imports were in excess of our exports. We hear no one, however, referring to them as years of ideal conditions in this country. On the contrary, they were years of unemployment, want and suffering, years of breadlines and soup houses.

Yet during these 37 years in which our exports exceeded our imports, our export goods were paid for, and they were not wholly paid for by imports by any means. They were paid for through the receipts from exports to other countries than the United States and through sales of their own commodities in the markets of the producing countries. Our export trade is built up through the fact that other countries need the goods which we have to sell. If we can sell them more cheaply, or furnish better goods than do other countries, we make the sales. In some cases we are the chief source of supply and consequently we get the bulk of the trade. We are the greatest producers of corn and hence we are the greatest exporters thereof.

The cry that we must adopt a FreeTrade policy because we are alleged to have become a creditor nation, is mere "poll parrot" talk. Some one made the statement and it sounded good to international bankers and traders and they appear to have sent it out as "plate matter" all over the country. It is easy to say it, but those who do say it are like the parrot, they don't know what they are talking about.

A Southern peanut worker gets $4.00 a day with house, garden and fuel free, for his labor. The Oriental peanut grower gets 16 cents a day, that is, if he is an adult and an expert. Now every Southern Congressman who believes in admitting Oriental peanuts into competition with American Southern grown peanuts, please vote accordingly, for Free-Trade. A vote against an adequate Protective Tariff on Southern products means a vote to patronize Japanese labor and industry

That is a very adroit plea for Free- rather than Southern labor and industry.

Sowing to the Wind-Reaping the Whirlwind.

Canada, our neighbor on the North, is held in very high esteem by the people of the United States. Next to the citizens of our own country, we love the Canadians best. The Canadian government, however, does not appear to extend to us the same measure of love that we bestow upon Canadians.

During the administration of President Taft this country offered to Canada a reciprocity undertaking which gave to that country very much the best of the bargain. Canada, however, did not seem to appreciate the offer and rejected it. Among other commodities which were to be admitted free of duty when imported from one country to the other was wheat. Wheat was then dutiable under our Tariff at the rate of 25 cents per bushel. Canada had wheat for export and there was no market for our wheat in that country. On the contrary, even under a Tariff of 25 cents per bushel, there were heavy importations of wheat from that country into this. In 1912 our importations of wheat from Canada amounted to 2,673,050 bushels, so that our Tariff of 25 cents per bushel was by no means prohibitive.

When the present Administration came to pass the Underwood Tariff, it lowered the duty on wheat to 10 cents per bushel, with the proviso that it should come in free of duty if imported from a country which imposed no duty on wheat imported from the United States. We did not have enough dignity to resent the refusal of Canada to meet us half way, or rather more than half way, for it was greatly to Canada's advantage to have such an arrangement in force. It was not until 1917 that Canada placed wheat from this country on the Free List and that she, consequently, began to ship her wheat here duty free. During the month of October, 1920, she entered our markets with 9,800,438 bushels absolutely free of duty.

Having learned what a fine thing it is to have a free market for her wheat and other farm products right at her doors, she is very much vexed because we are planning to withdraw the privilege which she at one time, and for so long, cavalierly rejected. She is now hinting at "reprisals." One of her prominent officials is reported to have made the following statement in connection with our Emergency Agricultural Tariff bill:

"A Tariff along the lines suggested cannot but have an immediate adverse effect upon Canadian trade, and it cannot be expected that Canada will take it lying down."

It was Charles Heber Clark who likened "Reciprocity" between this country and Canada to a proposition which the rooster made to the horse: "I'll agree not to step on your toes if you'll not step on mine." Now the rooster is threatening to tread on the hoofs of the horse. Might it not be well for Canada to

pluck the mote out of her own eye before she attempts to pluck the beam.out the eye of this country? It may not be amiss to recall to the attention of our Canadian friends the scant consideration shown to citizens of the United States in the matter of exportations of spruce logs and pulpwood to this country. In response to the urgent representations of certain newspapers of this country the Congress (unwisely) placed a very low rate of duty on news print imported from a country or province which did not place any restrictions on the exportation of such paper. It also placed wood pulp on the Free List when imported from a country or province which did not forbid or restrict the exportation of wood pulp. Different Canadian provinces showed their appreciation of this generous treatment by increasing such restrictions.

Then, after Americans had purchased large tracts of spruce lands for the express purpose of manufacturing the wood into pulp, the provinces forbade the exportation of logs, pulp wood and wood pulp entirely. That was not square treatment. It was of a piece with the ancient English law which permitted "any alien whomsoever to purchase any real property whatsoever," with the very naive provision, "but after that he hath purchased it, he holdeth it not." In other words, he could get rid of his money but that did not give him title to the land. He simply threw his money away, just as did the Americans who bought spruce land in Canada, unless they should also erect paper mills in Canada. That would mean a duplication of equipment and also prove damaging to their plants in this country.

Nor is this all, Canada, so far from appreciating the courtesies and trade offered to her by this country, rejected our offers of preferential treatment, but has extended it, not only to England and her colonies, but to other countries as well. While snubbing the United States Canada turned around and entered into preferential Tariff arrangements with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, in Europe and with Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela in South America, and with Japan.

It is Canada's right to enact such Tariffs as she sees fit. It is her right to extend preferential rates of duty to other countries and refuse them to the United States. It is her right to embargo all exports of any kind from her territory, either to this country or to other countries. But if she does so, she can with very poor grace ask us to ruin our own agricultural industries by allowing her free entry to our markets. After all that she has done to injure our industries and after all that we have done to grant her special favors, it comes with mighty poor

grace for her to threaten to tread on our

toes.

Kindly, we beg to suggest that it will be quite possible for us to exist without granting any special favors to Canada. We need all the coal that we can produce at the present time and we suggest the advisability of embargoing exports of coal to Canada, not to hurt Canada, but to enable Americans to enjoy the use of the coal mined in this country and for the lack of which they are now suffering.

Canadians, before they complain of any Tariff legislation on the part of this country, had better reform their own legislation. The proposed legislation for the Protection of our agricultural products is simply in harmony with the settled policy of this country from the very beginning of its separate existence, with only a few short lapses from the safe and sane policy. Not only that, but we are carrying out a policy of Tariff Protection similar to that which obtains in Canada and with which we find no fault. If Canada finds fault with the policy of Tariff Protection in the United States and attempts reprisals, it is more than likely that she will find that it is a game at which two can play.

An Absurd Free-Trade Statement.

The Rochester, N. Y. Herald, in its issue of December 16th, makes the following absurd statement:

"Mr. Fordney wants the Dingley rate on wool restored. The wool ware houses are bursting with stored wool which cost their owners little or nothing, and they must obtain high prices for it by Congressional hook or crook."

It is true that "the wool warehouses are bursting with stored wool." The reason why so much wool. is stored is that our farmers cannot sell it. Argentine wool is selling in our market as low as nine cents a pound, but it is grown on range land whose value can be measured in cents while the farm lands of this country are measured by dollars or hundreds of dollars, in many instances. Formerly sheep in this country were raised on the range which was either Government land or which was valued at little more than such land. There are comparatively few cheap ranges left. Where twenty or more years ago sheep were being pastured on land worth not over $2 per acre that same land is worth $100 or more per acre. Where sheepherders could be secured for $20 per month they are hard to get at several times that sum. Where hay for winter feeding could be had for the mowing and hauling, now it is worth $20 or more dollars per ton and is scarce at that.

In view of these facts, the statement of the Rochester Herald that the stored wool "cost their owners little or nothing," is sheerest nonsense. And yet of such statements are Free-Trade arguments compounded.

« AnteriorContinuar »