Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-10-14

features and negligible agrlcuLturai
and other raw production.
This is where the free port luta
comes in. Under its operation, GER
tain cities. parts of cities or even
larger sections could take all tae
advantage of the British free TRACE
| policy for the purpose of obtain
ing duty-free commodities to fab~i-
cate and re-export while keeping
the rest of the country protected
against an inflow of free goods.
Recently the Chamber OF Com
MERGE of the United States made a
careful study of the whole question.
A of the arguments Tor
and against free ports may be stated
as follows:
Arguments For and Against
Free Ports
Free ports would cut customs REQ
tape and attract cargoes 10 sucn
ports for transshipment and Tor
warding whether or not they were
to be manufactured. h would
bring freights to American SHIPS
New markets for foreign goods
would be established and American
manufacturers would gain the ad-
vantage of consignments from all
over the world.
BY concentrating business In free
ports, vastly increased harbor and
terminal facilities could be provid-
ell economically.
Free ports would simplify the
system of bonded warehouses
Free ports would save the large
sums which must be employed as
| customs bonds under this present
law. Now, when goods are brought
into the country. merely for re-
export, they must put UP a heavy
bond to insure payment of the duty,
provided they remain.
Free ports would simplify all Gus
toms procedure which now Is in
tricate because of the bond n
drawback provisions.
Arguments opposed are:
The United States is toe Isolated
geographically to be a favorable seat
for free ports and they would not
be so successful in attracting busi-
ness as their proponents assert.
Such a policy is a dangerous sep
In the direction of free trade which,
in the opinion of many, would ruin
American industry.
The present system OF bonded
warehouses and drawback IL ade-
quate to fill the need Of free ports
They would promote trade from
which the United States would de-
rive no revenue but would not pro-
mote manufacturing beyond Its
present advancement.
Confusion would arise from mixed
cargoes, parts of which would be
destined to free ports and parts &c
ports of entry. This. and the whole
system, would promote smuggling
Finally, it is claimed. the whole
scheme is unconstitutional because
friction would arise among the ports
and difficulties would be encounter
ed in their selection. A choice
would be practically impossible II
view Of the constitutional provis.cr
that mo preference shall be giver
by any regulation of commerce oil
revenue to the ports of one STATE
over those of another"
In spite of these strong objec'
lions the free port idea has man!
, tary of Commerce Redfield wa
5 much in favor of their establish
; ment and leading officials of TIN
United States Tariff Commission
) ard the Bureau of Foreign and Do
nestle Commerce nave inclined T.
{ the policy. Many great trade att
commercial organizations have ad
: vccated the plan.
The tariff is a subject whicl
seems rather technical to the lay
: man but in reality it has a bearini
{ en- everyday life. The whole cues
+ ton comes down to whether a ia
+ ton has a dense or a sparse popu.a
ton. In a dense population, labor j
= cheap and manufacture economical
Therefore such a country can un
. dersell the new country. In a n=N
country, people are at a premium
labor is high and manufactures ar
scarce.
Adam Smith. the eminent BIRTHS
= economist, illustrates the principl
s by explaining that in England
man in poor oil moderate circunl
= stances would not marry a widc'
e with several children because the
would be a burden to support in
nation already overpopulated. ]
the American colonies. he says. tn
more children a widow has tn
more Of a matrimonial catch she
because the man who marries he
e gains the assistance of a read
h made troop OF labor. the MOI
priced element of such a country.
The same comparison whic
n Adam Smith made between Engian