The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1916-03-28
SUBSTITUTE
FOR

Another Dill 10 cftdte a tam NN
mission has added to the general con
fusion in Congress which Professor
Wilson'S campaign conversion to that
idea initiated. The latest ebullition
spouts from the fertile mind of Hon.
M. N. Neeley, a Representative from
West Virginia, who has served less
than three years in Congress. Mr.. Nee
ley's bill proposes a commission, which
if it finds that Gin the case of any ar
tiele there exists a condition of com
petition of foreign industries with
those of the United States, whereby
the producers in the United States are
placed at an unfair disadvantage as
compared with foreign producers, and
that such condition is facilitated by
the then existing rate of duty or abb
sence of duty on such articles, it shall
SO certify to the Secretary of the
Treasury, and, after sixty days from
the date of the certiication the rate
of duty on such article shall be greater
by one-tenth than the rate existing at
the date of the cer~tifcation, or, if such
article is then exempt from duty, the
rate of duty shall be ten per eentum
ad valorem.'
This is rather vague. just what con
stitutes "unfair disadvantage''9 1t
has beer contended all along by Re
publicans that the prime reason for
protective duties lies in the fact that
the cost of production abroad is far
less than here, due to cheaper labor,
lower interest on capital and lower
rents. This difference often amounts to
as high as so per cent. Now, suppose
a Democratic revenue duty of 25 per
cent is levied on an article, the cost
of production of which, in Germany,
is so per cent lower than the cost of
production here. In the first place,
could it be termed "unfair disadvau-
tage" if Germany undersold us in our
own market on this ~articlef Certainly
it would be legitimate business, and
fair, so far as Germany was concerned,
satisfied as she undoubtedly would De
with a small unit profit in a very large
market. The ''unfairness' would be
in the duty levied by us. The commits
sion, then, might certify the fact of
underselling to the Secretary of the
Treasury, who, thereupon, might in
crease the duty by one-tenth, which, in
the case supposed, would make the duty
27h per cent, or still too low to serve
any practical purpose. Comparing the
rates in the present Democratic Law
with those in the last Republican law,
thousands of possibilities such as this
might be enumerated.
Section 3 of the Medley bill cramps
the shoe ON the other foot. Whenever
our importations of a certain article
for the preceding IL months have peel
less than 5 per cent of the domestic
consumption of such article, one-tentn
the prevailing rate on that article shall
be clipped off. This would keep the
tariff in a state of fux. No figures
would be available to prove that this
condition of affairs existed. But the
worst feature of this section is that
relating to the selling of goods abroad
cheaper than at home, the penalty for
so doing being a reduction of one-tenth
of the domestic duty on such goods.
In other words, any attempt of an
American manufacturer to market his
surplus goods abroad, or to make the
conquest of a foreign market, would
result in the pe~nalization of his en-
tire industry. The chief weapon of
England and Germany in capturing
foreign markets is underselling there
in until trade competitors are driven
out. The Neeley bill would put us at
a huge disadvantage in the South
American markets, for instance, over
which the Democratic administration
is making such a fuss.
Altogether, the Medley bill is a crude
makeshift, and indicates the general
incompeteney of the present majority
to handle economic policies.