DIGGING CRYSTALLIZED NITRATE UNDER A SCORCHING SUN IN THE "OFFICINA " MARIA, ONE OF THE BIG CHILEAN NITRE MINES England, not to be forestalled in this protective struggle, departs from its traditional proud policy of free trade by the enactment of the Dyestuffs Import Regulation Act of December 23, 1920, effective January 15, 1921, and of the "Safeguarding of Industries Act" of August 19, 1921, taking effect October 1, 1921. By law on February 23, 1921, Chile increased its import duties from fifty to one hundred per cent, while France increased its general rates of duty by the act of March 29, 1921. These acts were quickly followed by the new protective tariff of Spain, which became effective May 21, 1921. Italy, too, by royal decree effective July 1, 1921, raised its rates and in addition provided for the computation of duties in gold lire! Although Japan, by a law effective on July 1, 1921, seems to aim at a protection of new industries, yet a protective policy is evidenced by its change of rates from specific to ad valorem.2 The present Parliament of Denmark has under consideration, a new tariff bill, submitted on November 23, 1921. This measure is rather protective in character and embodies a new principle of levying the duties on imports to that country on the basis of their value rather than of their weight. FALLACIES OF VISION IN MERE NATIONALISM The maintenance of the national standard of living at the expense of the standards of other nations has been the policy of the nations of the world. Yet a nationalistic policy, like this, is both narrow and near-sighted. That it is narrow is obvious, and, perhaps, justifiable, if it were wise, that is, if it brought to the nation the results at which it aimed. That it does not do so is owing to its near-sightedness. It results from lack of vision. This fact, though not so perceptible, is equally true. A nationalistic policy works like a boomerang, bounding back toward the one who has launched it forth, and with a force and directness of aim not characteristic of that weapon, for it returns to hit its sender, forcibly, between the brows, fairly and squarely. Good business methods would never admit such a policy. Our tariff experience has taught us that the Protective Tariff Act of 1832 so enraged the state of South Carolina that it passed the Nullification Act, the influence of which directly led to the 2 See Foreign Tariff Legislation, Department of Commerce, 1921, pp. 6-10. Civil War. That state, being actuated by a predominately local viewpoint, assisted in precipitating a conflict, the effect of which is still being borne by the country. A similar spirit is again being manifested in our tariff policies and inevitably will rebound to the economic injury of the country prescribing to such doctrines. If carried out consistently, free-trade policies would diversify international investments and minimize the danger of recurring wars by tending to develop a closer bond of union and a community of interests between the countries of the world. Labor, in its stand against immigration, might well take a leaf out of this book of experience. In the last analysis, the devastating effects of war are more heavily laid, if possible, upon its shoulders, than on that of its fellow, capital. ATTITUDE OF ORGANIZED LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES ON QUESTIONS OF IMMIGRATION AND TRADE Organized labor has invaribaly favored restrictive immigration laws to maintain the American standard of living for the working man and has accepted the principle of a protective tariff because many laborers are convinced that protective duties are necessary to protect them from a lowering of wages by the "pauper labor " of other lands. Its attitude toward the immigrant is partly explained by the truth that it was necessary to protect their standard of living in the United States from the poverty-stricken, diseased, and undesirable immigrants of the early 80's by the passage of the first immigration regulative acts. Later, it was necessary to pass further prohibitory immigration acts owing to the incoming of hordes of people from southern Europe and the Far East with their different standards of living which menaced the standards so jealously guarded in the United States. In respect to immigration all attempts toward the realization of a closer relationship between the labor forces of the world have been met with the stubborn resistance of labor in the more developed countries. These forces have maintained that to admit labor of the less prosperous countries would lower the standard of living in their own country. Professor L. S. Rowe, Secretary-General of the Pan-American Commission, attacks this position in his writings on protective labor legislation. He claims that to bring about a closer bond between the Americans involves industrial and social problems and the "governmental guaranty of a minimum standard of life to the masses."3 The delegates at the Peace Conference at Versailles specifically recognized that "differences in climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labor difficult of immediate attainment." This follows out our general theory that all economic arguments resolve themselves into the fundamental principle that if a people prosper economically, then automatically its standards are changed and raised. CAUSES OF LACK OF CO-OPERATION Primarily, international co-operation is prevented by labor organizations making such demands as that for a forty-eight-hour working week, and secondly by a desire on the part of organized labor to maintain its standard of living by forbidding the entrance of the foreigner to our shores. It may be true that Japan is so over-populated that its people can force from nature only enough to subsist by working some fourteen hours or more a day. If this be the case, and the overpopulation is not to be checked, there is nothing to be done. For the "long-run " effect, the only remedy for Japan would be to build a wall around itself until its inhabitants were forced to decide in self-defense whether or not there were greater evils than surplus population and low standards of living. The need for much legislation would entirely disappear if the standards of living in the world were comparatively uniform. Therefore, anything which raises the standard of living in poorer countries of the world would have the effect of stabilizing conditions and would tend toward continued peace. It necessarily is a basic truth that if all standards of living were low, then there would be few fundamental maladjustments; and there would be little dissension, if all standards were high. Th refore, differing standards of living build our tariff wall, and restrict our immigration, and high tariff and restricted immigration mea Proceedings of American Politcal Science Quarterly, Vol. VII, No. 2, 1917, p. 273. sures, in turn, prevent international unity and bring strife and conflict. So long as standards of living are different, then each nation is compelled to legislate to the detriment of the other nation, and this leads to further misunderstanding and disunion. There is a crying need, therefore, to make the standards of living more uniform. Differing standards of living block the way for international co-operation and for a fuller understanding and appreciation of those standards from which have evolved civilizations different from our own. NATIONALISTIC IMMIGRATION MEASURES PARALLEL "KNOW NOTHING" SPIRIT OF CIVIL WAR PERIOD One remembers that the slogan of " America for the Americans " was the rallying cry of the "Know-Nothings" when they attempted a national policy cf restriction of immigration. GOVERNMENTS ENACT RESTRICTIVE IMMIGRATION LAWS We, moreover, are not the only nation which fosters this internationalistic policy to preserve its standard of living; it has also been shown by Great Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, and Columbia in their immigration policies. As a direct result of the economic collapse in Europe following the World War, the people of locked-in Central Europe and Asia Minor commenced to pour to, around, and about any outlet for their distress. Many countries immediately adopted an arrogant nationalistic policy of aloofness from their neighbors' afflictions, irrespective of whether or not they had been friends or foes in the cause of their misery the recent stupendous war struggle. In the recently enacted Percentage Immigration Law of the United States, effective June 3, 1921, "to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States," the separatists spirit is sharply and predominately manifested. ALIENS' RESTRICTION ACT OF GREAT BRITAIN Our policy of limiting the immigration of aliens into our country was soon duplicated by Great Britain in its regulations concerning entrance into the United Kingdom. |