New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-07-13
"Pro6teering" in War Time

/ President Wilson's appeal for unseltsh-
ness in war prices and his warning that
the government will not tolerate "proflt-
eering" must be considered from two
points of view. What the President says
! is convincing answer to the nonsense
/ being talked in the Senate about the I'M
wisdom of a governmental food control
which would suspend the operation of or
binary economic laws" The primary pur-
pose of government regulation is to sus-
pend the sort Of economic laws" under
which spectators, forestallers and middle
men have recently been boosting wheat
and -four prices to near-famine levels. IL
the bill pending in the Senate does not in
terfere with the natural economic laws"
which make such exploitation easy, the
Senate is simply wasting time in consid-
ering it.
War onditions-especially world war
conditions-suspend the operation of ordi-
nary economic rules. The so-called law of
supply and demand was practically abol-
ished for that matter, so far as any protec-
ton given to the consumer is concerned,
when the great combinations of middle
men took control of food distribution.
They applied "higher law"-that of arti-
fetal restriction of supply and artlflcial
| initiation of prices. They have made the
old-fashioned, natural economic law their
servant and agent. 1t is to abolish the con-
sumer's economic peonage that government
food control is now being instituted. No
other power than the governments is am
pie enough, or we'll organized enough, to
restore a Just economic relation between
the producer and the consumer.
The country will be glad to know that
President Wilson is determined to end the
borIage of the food consumer, at least
for the duration of the war Mr.. Hoover
said the other day in regard to the wheat
situation: "The Spectator, legitimate or
vicious, has taken large part OF the
money paid by the consumer" Every con-
sumer and every producer knows that this
statement is true and that it applies to
/ food articles all along the line. Food is
war necessity-for those at the front and
/ for those who stay at home. 1t is an in
dispensabe war measure to put food pro
duction and distribution at once on a non
profteering basis. We do not believe that
the country will tolerate anything less
than that.
As to all other war necessities and their
much further than he has ever gone before,
and further, perhaps, than public opinion
is at present ready to follow him. He
demands that there shall be no profiteer-
ing in any of the war industries, and that
the producers in all these industries shall
make as fair prices to the public as they
do to the government. 1t is a noble idea
that no producer or manufacturer shall
seek to make excess profits out Of the war.
But so far as products other than food are
concerned. war economists generally have
felt it wiser not to interfere too rashly
with the industrial machine. They have
been willing to allow the producer or the
manufacturer to pile up excess profits, re-
covering them from him later through an
excess profits tax.
The question is largely one of sound
procedure. Everybody recognizes the JUS
tice of recovering excess profits for public
use. The war tax bill, as amended by the
Senate Finance Committee, levies a mod
crate tax on such profits-a far heavier
tax than that carried in the bill as it
passed the House of Representatives, but
still a moderate tax, compared with SINH
lar excess profits taxes levied by the Brit
ish government.
Shall excess profits be cut off at their
source, thus vastly increasing the ability
of the community at large to pay direct
taxes? Or shall they be permitted and
then taken over in full, or in large part,
by the government?
The Presidents plan and the plan of the
Senate Finance Committee are in conflict.
If the Senates rates had been advanced
until they practically covered all excess
profits the two plans could be said to aim
at exactly the same result, but to apply
contrary methods. Which method is the
more practicable? The Senate's has
worked in Great Britain and it has the
merit of avoiding a vast arrangement of
the machinery of industry. Would it not
be better to stick to it, instead Of trying to
force producers and manufacturers to
eliminate excess profits at the source?
What is needed to-day is a vigorous ap-
plcation of the principle of no war profit
eering. One for all and all for one is the
true spirit of patriotism. We must all pay
and suffer together, and no one should
wish to make personal gain out Of our
great tragedy 1t is the governments duty
TO see that the burdens of the war are
equitably distributed. But in distributing
them let us choose the least destructive
and least confusing way.