Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-10-14

port foreign oomnodities and Eng
land has found it desirable TO impose
customs duties on some imports.
Ensiand's duties apply chiefly 10
luxuries and 10 Foods which compete
with her own manufactures but her
policy 10 chiefly espoused for the pur-
pose OF raising badly needed revenue.
Her cid free trade tradition has been
but slightly shaken and. II normal
times return. II Is likely some OF her
existing tariff levies may be removed
or reduced.
The United States really - several
countries under one Government.
There are geographical divisions which
present the sharpest contrasts. New
England, fer instance, Is a region COM
parable to England iteelf from the
viewpoint Of congested manufactures
and negligible agricultural and other
raw production.
This Is where the free port idea
comes in. Under its operation. GER
tain cities. parts of cities or even lar
ger sections could take all the advan-
tage OF the British free trade policy
for the purpose of obtaining duty
! ~ az. t'ctAc s-sAA kt-tA yIA Z
while keeping the rest of the country
protected against an inflow CT free
! goods.
| Recently the Chamber Of Commerce
of the United States made a careful
study OF the whole question. A sum
mary of the arguments for AMI
against free ports may be stated as
| follows:
Arguments For And Against Free Ports
Free ports would cut customs red
tape and attract cargoes TO such ports
for transshipment and forwarding
whether or not they were to be manu-
| factured. This would bring freights
70 American ships.
New markets for foreign goods
| would be established and American
manufacturers would gain the advan-
tage Of consignments from all oTer
| the world
By concentrating business in free
ports. vastly increased hal-bor and
terminal facilities could be provided
economically.
Free ports would simplify the sys.
tenn OF Bonded warehouses.
Free ports would save the large
sums which must be employed as Gus.
toms bonds under the present law
Now, when goods are brought into
the country. merely for re-export
they must put up heavy bond TO in
sure payment of the duty, provided
they remain.
Free ports would simplify all Gus
toms procedure which now is intri
, ! cato haRa nf he
, back provisions.
Arguments opposed are:
The United States is too isoiate
, geographically 10 be a favorable sea
/ for free ports and they would not b
) so successful in attracting business a
1 their proponents assert.
Such policy is a dangerous ste
IN the direction of free trade which
!. IN the opinion of many, would rui
American industry.
Q The present system Of bonded ware
e houses and drawback is adequate Z
{ MI the need OF free ports. They woul
= promote trade from which the Unite
!, States would derive no revenue bu
4 would not promote manufacturin
8 beyond it's present advancement.
Confusion would arise from mike
ship cargoes, parts of which would b
y destined TO free ports and parts I
a ports OF entry. This. and the Who'll
system. would promote smuggling.
s Finally, it is claimed. the who
scheme is unconstitutional becaus
: friction would arise among the port
r and difficulties would be encountere
o IN their selection. A choice woul
e be practically impossible in view {
6 the constitutional provision that ~
o preference shall be given by any regl
: latlon of commerce or revenue TO II