Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1906-11-22
WHY DUAL TARIFFS.
IMPORTANCE OF STARTING RIGHT
ON THAT QUESTION.
Whenever Foreign Discrimination
Compels Us to Adopt Two Differ
ent Sets of Schedules a Mini
mum Tariff Should First
Be Established as
Basis.

radical difference between minimum
and maximum tariff system and max
imum and minimum system. The neces-
sity for emphasizing this distinction
becomes apparent in view of the fact
that substantially all the plans and
schemes formulated for so-called "reci-
procity" arrangements are based upon
a maximum tariff from which min
imum tariff is to be created by means
of reduced rates of duty. Almost
without exception the advocates of
dual tariff for the United States start
out with the maximum. Complete ig-
norance seems to prevail on this ques-
tion.
The United States has no maximum
tariff. The only tariff it has is the
minimum-that is to say, the single
set of duties adopted in 1897, as ade-
quate for the protection of American
labor and industry.
All the countries which have adopt
ed a dual tariff have created maxi
mum rates for trading purposes. They
make their tariff duties higher than
normal by from 25 to 100 per cent, in
order that they have something to
dicker with. After they have made
concessions for the sake Of advantages
to be gained in export markets their
tariff rates are only brought back to
the normal. There has been no real
reduction.
The United States cannot play this
game of marking up and marking down
tariffs under our existing tariff sys-
TEN. q 1t has nothing but minimum tar
iff to operate with it has nothing
to swap. Therefore, say the "reci-
procity" people, let us install a dual
tariff system a maximum and min
imum.
Right here would come in the ques-
tion of the vital distinction between
a maximum and minimum tariff and
a minimum and maximum tariff. If
the existing schedules are to be the
maximum from which reductions may
be made in favor of imports from
countries which grant to our exports
their lowest tariff rates, that is one
thing. IT. however, the existing sched-
ules are to be held as the minimum,
to be increased as against imports
from countries refusing to grant to
our exports their lowest rates, that
is another and a very different thing.
In the first case supposed-maxi-
mum and minimum-we should have
a continually changing and unstable
system of tariff duties. The producer
who to-day operates under a so per
cent. ad valorem duty, which insures
his market and under that duty rate
contracts a year ahead FOR his labor
and raw materials, may tomorrow, or
next week, or next month, find that
"by executive authority" conferred by
act of congress, the duty rate has
been reduced 20 per cent, and is now
40 per cent. ad valorem instead of so
per cent. That would amount to a
net reduction of ten per cent in the
selling price of his product OF course
he could not continue to pay the same
rate of wages and the same prices for
raw materials. He must shut down
his works, lay off his work people, AID
stop buying raw materials, or else
reduce wages.
We are not now arguing for the reten-
tion of the existing tariff schedules.
That is not the question. What we are
endeavoring to make clear is the fact
that under a maximum and minimum
tariff system a stable condition of
rates of duty would become impos-
shle. Therefore, we say, if we are to
have a dual tariff at all-and very
probably we must have two sets of
schedules If we are to be prepared to
punish countries discriminating unfair
ly against our eXports-we should have
a minimum and maximum, and not a
maximum and minimum tariff
Whatever may be our schedule of
duty rates-whether the present Ding.
ley rates or lower rates or higher rates
that schedule of rates should be the
minimum, the irreducible minimum.
The interests alike of production
and employment; of employer and en-
ployed; of wage payer and wage earn
er; of capital and labor; of the farmer
CT the miner who markets raw ma
t-ria.s, the manufacturer who buys
[, ose raw materials, and the artisan
who works them up into finished prod
ucts ready for consumption-al these
interests absolutely require stable
tariff, and irreducible minimum of duty
rates.
AS rule. the advocates of a maxi
mum tariff system intend through that
system to bring about a material re-
duction of the existing tariff rates.
The American Reciprocal Tariff
league, for example, makes no secret
of that intention. Pretty much all
the reciprocity shouters are aiming
al the same mark-all-around tariff re-
Guction. Some protectionists are lend
ing their sanction to dual tariff
schemes and so-called reciprocity
schemes, without comprehending that
each and every one of these schemes
has been devised as an indirect meth
cd of securing a general reduction of