New-York tribune., 1910-01-05


more so than the existing tariff. As
originally reported by Mr.. Morel, 1t pro-
vided for increased duties above the ex-
listing rates on no fewer than S66 arti-
cles and for q reduction on only six.
That these changes are defensive rather
than aggressive is maintained in the re-
minder that most of Frances neighhors
have lately revised their tariffs i'll way
which has borne hard upon French in
dustrieS and commerce. Thus Germany
and Switzerland revised their tariffs in
1902. Russia in 1903. Rumania and Ser
via in 1904 and Spain in 1906. OF these
the German tariff was in particular
highly specialized, with the object, as
the German Chancellor frankly declared,
of preventing France from gaining any
greater advantage than was absolutely
unayoida BILE under the Treaty OF FRANK
fort and the ''most favored nation
clause. Thus. with nearly thousand
articles specialized, Germany was and is
able to make concessions on any of them
to Austria or Italy or Russia and yet not
to France. 1t is to meet that disae-
vantageous state of affairs that France
now proposes a highly specialized tariff
which she can use in the same manner.
There has been much opposition to the
new schedules both in France and in other
countries. and particularly in Great Brit
ain. where even some Liberals have been
moved to wish for. if not 10 demand. re-
taliatory measures The usual cry OF
the Cobdenites. that protective tariffs
handicap foreign commerce. has been
raised To this Mr. Morel has replied by
citing the actual effects of Mr.. Meline's
tariff of 1892. In 1891 French imports
amounted to 1858 100000 and in 1907 TO
81 244 100000 In 1891 exports amount
ed to $714.OOO,OOO. and in 1907 to'$1,119.-
100000 Thus in seventeen years, with
a practically stationary population, inn
ports were increased 80 per cent and eX-
ports 56 per cent. while the difference
between the two was decreased by
nearly As per cent In the face of such
figures it is certainly difficult to main
tain that protective tariff either ham,
pers foreign trade or operates unjustly
against other nations. Mr.. Morel also
effectivel'- answers those who denounce
protection for increasing the cost Of
food. In 1861 the duty on wheat was
only 60 centimeS a quirtal. i'll 1880 it
was three francs, in 1887 five francs,
and in 1894, as at present seven francs.
Correspondngly from 1884 to 1891 the
average yearly production of wheat in
France was O5,700.OO0 hectolitres. from
1899 to 1899 it was ia, 100000 and from
1900 to 1907 it was III 100000. imports
of foreign wheat coTTespOndingly declln-
ing. And-most of all TO the point
from 1861 to 1885, under the 60 centimeS
duty. the average price of wheat was
$3.50 francs a quintal; from 1885 to 1892,
under the three and five francs duty, it
was 1884 francs; from 1892 to 1894. I'M
der the five francs duty, it was 22.OS
francs. and from 1894 to 1906, under Il
seven francs duty. it was PIG francs.
That is to say. instead Of the cost to the
consumer being increased by the amount
of the duty. it has been decreased by
that amount, and at the end of 1907
wheat was cheaper in Paris under
seven francs duty than in London under
no duty at all.
In the face of such shOwings as these
the new tariff system seems likely to De
strongly commended to the French peo-
pie who will expect to find in it what it's
chief author describes as "a strong and
supple weapon, of great service 10 ma
"tiOnal interests in the negotiation and
preparation of future commercial con
"ventiOns' Mr. Morel adds that as the
maxim "dO at dcs" is 10 regulate the
negotiation of international agreements,
the longer the schedule of concessions
which can be offered by France the more
important will be the reciprocal advan-
tages which she will he able to claim.