and further added that writers of economics considered that this bill would mean a new national adjustment of wages, and that "it would level the present standard of living to that of the foreign plane." In conclusion he pleaded that there was no reason for the enactment of this legislation "unless it is the intent and desire to adjust American In opposition to the bill, Mr. J. M. Smith, of Michigan, on the same day, employed the same character of argument as that of Mr. Browning of New Jersey. He was convinced that the wages of the working people would be lowered and that the laborer would be compelled to do twice as much work for the same wage and thereby his efficiency would be impaired and his welfare would be jeopardized." 78 66 This argument was followed by that of Mr. Barton, of Nebraska, who entered his protest against the bill on the ground that the farmer would be handicapped in his efforts to improve methods of living if he were brought into keen competition with foreign agriculturists.79 OPPOSITION TO THE BILL BECAUSE OF HARMFUL INFluence ON THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING On April 28 Mr. Calder of New York favored the continuance of the protective tariff and inserted several of his letters from constituents who wrote in opposition to any lowering of the tariff wherever it affected the beet sugar industry or that of the importation of pictures. One letter was inscribed by W. L. Saunders, Vice-President of D. Saunders' Sons, Incorporated, and dated April 10, 1913, reading in part as follows: "Also as manufacturers of machinery, we object to any reduction of tariff on machine tools, as certainly it cannot be expected that the American working man should be brought to the same standard of wages and 77 Congressional Record, 63rd Cong., Vol. L, p. 459. 78 Ibid., p. 482. 79 Ibid., p. 484. living as the mechanics abroad, and this, we believe, Again, Frank Greenquist, as a member of the Photo-Gelatine Workers' Union, wrote to Mr. Calder on April 12, 1913, as follows: 66 Furthermore, should the tariff be lowered on the goods above mentioned, it would be impossible for our employers to compete with the foreign producers, and consequently they would be compelled either to abandon the industry or reduce our wages to such an extent as to almost deprive us of a decent livelihood, to which we as American citizens are justly entitled." The wish of Mr. Albert Johnson of Washington was expressed directly afterwards that the United States would continue its high tariff in order " to protect the man who invests his capital, makes the goods or grows the product, and provides the American standard of living." 81 INFLUENCE OF THE UNDERWOOD-SIMMONS Tariff on FOREIGN Countries The Underwood Tariff, being a measure tending toward a revision downward, was not so provocative of various complications with foreign governments. Nevertheless this act later aroused the suspended commercial hostility between the United States and Germany for the question of a tax upon potash exported from Germany by Americans had arisen. In accordance with the reciprocity provisions of the 1913 Tariff Law, the Argentine Republic and Australia removed their duties on wheat. Owing to this reciprocity clause, Canada, on April 16, 1917, removed her duties on wheat, flour and semolina, and soon after, in 1918, placed potatoes on her free list, thus immediately taking advantage of the reciprocal free admission of foodstuffs into the United States. 80 Congressional Record, 63rd Cong., Vol. L, p. 696. 81 Ibid., p. 696. ACHIEVEMENT OF HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING OWING TO Frederick E. Kipp, of Montclair, New Jersey, in an address entitled "Democratic Underwood-Simmons Tariff Bill" reviewed the great achievements of the Republican Party in its consistent stand in favor of protection, and upheld his belief that the United States is "the greatest commercial nation in the world, with a standard of wages and a standard of living unheard of in any other country in the world." This conclusion was also reached by Warren G. Harding, when Chairman of the Republican National Convention at Chicago, June 7, 1916. In his address to the convention on that date, he reiterated the benefits derived by the people from the Republican policy of protection, and acclaimed, "Subsistence is the first requisite of existence, and we have the higher American standard of living because of the Republican protective policy which makes of Americans the best paid workmen in the world. Out of the abundance of employment and higher compensation, together with the beckoning opportunity which offers every reward, we Americans have attracted the laborers of the earth, and set new standards here." 1 CHAPTER XII THE INFLUENCE OF OUR TARIFF POLICIES UPON FOREIGN NATIONS Recent tariff measures, including the Emergency Act of 1921 and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff with a full account of the representations made by foreign governments regarding the enactment of such measures. PART I DEVELOPMENT OF FOREIGN TRADE AN UNDERLYING MOTIVE FOR OUR TARIFF LEGISLATION During recent years the development of foreign commerce has played an important part in all of our tariff legislation, for our manufactured and agricultural products must have expanding markets; and the competition of foreign governments and their greater tariff stringency compels the exporters from all countries to redouble their efforts for a place in the trade. The commercial reciprocity provisions which have been enacted in all of our later tariff legislation, show a well-defined intent toward the expansion of foreign commerce. The McKinley and the Dingley Tariff contained reciprocity clauses affecting a certain number of commodities and while the Payne-Aldrich Tariff provided for reciprocity; yet the underlying principle was retaliation. The Underwood Tariff reduced the average rates and extended the free list; yet on the whole it was a highly protective measure. The Tariff Act of 1916 simply raised the rates on all coal tar products, the object being to encourage the production of such stuffs in this country. The World War in Europe had cut off the supply of dyes, drugs, synthetic drugs and synthetic chemicals, and this seemed a golden opportunity in which to develop the coal tar industries in this country.1 1 See Act of 1916. Amended several paragraphs of Underwood-Simmons Tariff of 1913. Raised rates on coal tar products (dyes, drugs, synthetic drugs, synthetic chemicals). REASONS FOR PROTECTIONIST POLICIES AT THIS TIME There is a growing demand for the protection of Agricultural Interests in the United States as is clearly evident by the unbending attitude of the "Agricultural bloc" in Congress and by the enactment of the Emergency Tariff of 1921. Another reason for the Protectionist theories to become of paramount importance is the overwhelming victory of the Republican Party, the historical party of protection at the last Presidential election. Lastly the United States has developed a nationalistic view point as is clearly shown in the dye stuff embargo provisions of the 1916 Act. These clauses relating to dye substances have been violently debated in the Fordney-McCumber Tariff for it is well recognized that all dye-stuffs are readily turned into war-making materials. LEGISLATORS UPHOLD TARIFF TO MAINTAIN STANDARD OF Since the nation today is involved in reconstruction problems, a protective tariff is necessary, considered Representative Harris J. Bixler, of Pennsylvania, on March 11, 1921, and "there is no need for penalizing American laborers because foreigners withhold from their laborers that compensation which enables them only decent living conditions." "A protective tariff is a true American doctrine," writes Representative Miner G. Norton of Ohio of March 19, 1921, "and it is essential for the maintenance of the high standard of wages and living that prevails in America." THE EMERGENCY TARIFF RAISES RATES ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS The Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 raised duties on agricultural products pending the general revision of the tariff by the FordneyMcCumber Bill then being written. It was designed as a temporary measure and, after being twice extended, a joint resolution was passed prolonging the life of the Act until such time as the general tariff revision should become effective. 2 See American Economist, June 17, 1921, p. 192. 3 Ibid. |