New-York tribune., 1920-09-21
CONGRESSES Will
Set at Naught
On Shipping Act

Should Force Government
to Notify Other Nations
of Changes i'm Treaties,
Declares Marine Expert
II the executive branch OF the gov
eminent can defy Congress by refusing
to enforce laws Congress enacts gov
ernment becomes q farce, says Alex
ander R. Smith, editor Of The Marine
News, in q statement referring to the
failure to carry out provisions Of the
merchant marine act Of 1920 regarding
the amendment Of commercial treaties
with other nations. Mr.. Smith has for
thirty years been an advocate Of the
readoption of the early Anne policy
of discriminating import and tonnage
duties, on the ground that the shipping
problem is tariff problem. and that
our ships should be protected against
foreign competition by the same anstru
ment that protects other American
products against foreign competition.
ut goes to show that foreign ship
ping interests are more powerful than
American at Washington" he says.
"The State Department seems more dis
posed to favor foreign shipping than
American. The executive branch Of
the government refused to enforce Sec
tion 22 Of the Dingley tariff act, which
provided for the restoration of the old
discriminating duty policy, except
where treaties prevented-is' ~eeealed
all laws that held the old policy in><'s-
pension. Twelve years later the Payne
Aldrich tariff restored the suspension
Of the policy through acts Of Congress
as we'll as through treaties. Then the.
Underwood tariff act provided for 5
per cent discount of the duty on inn
ports in American vessels, except where
treaties protected imports in foreign
vessel from discriminatory treatme MT,
and this provision the executive branch
OF the government refused to enforce.
"Now the merchant marine act seeks
to repeal the provisions Of all treaties
that prevent US from discriminating in
favor OF our ships and their imports
1t requires that the President shall give
the required notice to other nations
with which we have trade treaties that
prevent US from discriminating in favor
of our own vessels and their imports,
but the objections of foreign nations
to this action seems to cause the Presi-
dent to refuse to carry out the manda-
tory provision of the law. 1t would
seem to me that If the executive
branch of the government can defy
hJyr ayyrv n~$N u,
Congress enacts our government be-
comes a farce.
During a period of twenty three
years, therefore, Congress has thrice
tried to remove some OF the suspensory
features from our old discriminating
duty law that has never been repealed
it has merely been suspended-which
has remained upon our statute books
unrepealed since 1889. And thrice the
executive branch of the government has
refused to carry out the provisions of
such laws, Plainly, this Is in the in
terest Of foreign shipping-it is
against The interest of American ship
ping. Does it not show that foreign
shipping possesses a greater influence
at Washington than American ship
pirg?
The reason for this. as Isee it," con-
eluded Mr.. Smith, dis: this former
policy was in full or partial effect :.r
sixty-one years. or from 1889 until
1850. During the entire period-yes,
until the advent Of the Civil War
eleven years later-for a period OF
seventy-two years American ships car
ried an average of 80 per cent Of our
imports and exports. For nearly three
quarters OF century four-Afths Of
our entire foreign commerce was car
oh
tions did everything in their power Of
a retaliatory or eountervailing char
acter to Offset the effects of our dis
crlminatory shipping Laws.
The result Of retaliation during
those seventy-two years gave foreign
ships the carrying Of 20 per cent and to
American ships the carrying Of 80 per
cent Of our foreign commerce. Why,
then, should we dread the possibilities
OF retaliation II we remove the sus-
pensory features from that old law?
Foreign nations know that our early
snlpp,ng policy was a successful one,
and they want to prevent its reapplica.
tion.
All this talk about modifying these
termlnable trade treaties is rot, To
give effect to the Seamen's act also
approved by President Wilson ON
March q, 1918, it was necessary 70
modify these same trade treaties; and
that act provided that the President
fMr. WILSON, should give notice To-
the nations with which we have these
terminsble trade treaties of our inten-
ton to modify them; and President
Wilson. through the Secretary ~
state, In 1915 gave the necessary
notice. at The end of which the provis-
! 'ons OF treaties that restrained the Full
operation Of the Seamen's act ceased to
operate. so, plainly. there is nothing
modifying terminable trade treaties
when We find their provisions unsatis.
factory. President Wilson should ha
forced to carry out the intent Of Cor
gress." NA w"