The New York herald., 1921-12-12


the notices, as President Harding has
also declined, and so this section of the
merchant marine act of 1920 remains
a dead letter. 1t is a well established
fact that Congress has the right to abro-
gate treaties. Many times it has exer-
cised that right. Whether Congress can
direct the executive branch of the Gov
| erament to carry out its purpose in such
! respect I do not claim to know.
Tho main point to emphasize, there
| fore, Is that It is not impossible to en-
force that provision of the law" and
| that what is proposed Is not the
abb ogation but merely the modification
Of our terminable trade treaties and con-
ventions. Just as they were modified at
| Congress's direction at very recent
daee.
The President stated that Congress
provided for the termination of the
| treaties "in order to admit of reduced
duties on imports carried in American
| bottoms" He is quite mistaken; that
was not the reason. The Underwood
tariff provides for a per cent. reduc-
ton OF the duty on imports in America
vessels. which the Supreme Court de-
clared would not become effective until
| the commercial treaties were abrogated
or modified. Automatically, therefore,
the Underwood discount might tempo
rarily become effective; but the object
of those who framed the Jones act was
to impose higher duties on imports in
foreign vessels, and higher tonnage dues
on foreign vessels. Just as we did for
over sixty years In pre-civil war times,
and Senator Jones months ago intro
duced a bill providing per cent.
extra duty on dutiable imports and 2
per cent. duty on non-dutlable imports
in foreign vessels.
In closing permit me TO say that IL
was the policy OF the United States from
1889 until 1850 to protect American
| ships in foreign trade by imposing a
higher duty on imports in foreign ships
than was imposed on imports in Amer
icar chips, and to collect higher ton
mage taxes from foreign than were col
lccted from American vessels. This pol
| icy was In full force from 1889 until
1915, and II was gradually suspended
thereafter until, in 1850, such suspension
| became general The suspension was
effected both by terIninable trade treaties
and conventions and bylaws. So IL the
treaties and conventions are modified
! as provided in Section "a OF the mer-
chant marine act of 1920 the old policy
does rot automatically again go into
effect It is still necessary to repeal
such laws as also help hold it in sus-
pension. What Congress manifestly
planned was to clear the way for the
l,ana ar,t.lta tn,N 30 Itn vi fttt
American policy of discriminating i'm
port duties and tonnage dues If it de-
! sired afterward to do so.
The strength OF the old discriminat-
ing duty policy lies in two important
! facts: /. It gives protection TO Ameri-
can ships in competition with foreign
ships through the same instrumentality
that gives protection to such of our
other products as are subject to foreign
cor petition, and without taking a dollar
from the national treasury; in fact.
where it fails to aid our ships II in
creases our revenues. 2. During the
whole seventy-two years preceding our
civil war, in sixty-one Of which this old
policy was in full or partial effect,
American ships averaged the carriage
of 80 per cent of our imports and ex-
ports foreign ships, despite every retail
iatory expedient their Governments could
apply. averaging but 20 per cent. OF our
foreign carrying.
Isn't that whole lot better than 70
attempt TO pay from $50. 600. 900 to $780,
0c0, 900 year in subsidies direct from
the national treasury to our shpowners.
at n time when the nation Is staggering
under intolerable debts. with deficits rae
ing us on every hand and depression In
business about the worst we ever have
experienced? ALEXANDER II. SMITH.
RosEBANK, December 10.