Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-10-14
Washington, d. c.. Oct. 11.-After
a wear and n half of effort. congress


ing increased customs duties on i'm
ports into the United States. This
legislation has brought forward anew
the question of the wisdom of estab-
fishing free ports in America.
A free port Is a geographic excep-
ton to a nations tariff. 1t is a city
or a specified zone in a city to which
foreign goods may be brought, altered
or manufactured, and re-exported
without the payment of duty. The Of
ficial definition given free ports by
the United States tariff commission
reads as follows:
"a free port or free zone is a place,
adjacent territory in being exempt
from the customs laws as affecting
goods destined for re-export; it means,
simply, that as regards customs duties
there is freedom, unless and until i'm
ported goods enter the domestic mar
ket. A free zone may be defined as
an isolated, inclosed and policed area,
without resident population, furnished
with the necessary facilities for lading
and %unlading, for supplying fuel and
ships stores, for storing goods and for
r~eshipping them, by land and water;
an area within which goods may be
~NAA~Nf Pto ~, AlAACNs u1ClluCut IC~
packed, manufactured and re-shipped
without payment of duties and without
the intervention Of customs officials.
1t is subject, equally with adjacent re-
gions, to all laws relating to public
health, vessel inspection, postal serv-
ice, labor conditions, immigration, and,
indeed, everything except the customs
There have been two great parties
in the United States practically since
the foundation of the republic. One
has espoused the principle of free
trade, that is the free. import of goods
without payment of customs duties;
and the other has espoused the prin-
ciple of protection of native industries
through the medium of a high tariff
which will prevent foreign made goods
from coming here and selling as cheap
ly as the home product may sell.
Basically, the broad reasons for and
against a tariff are the following: A
thickly populated country producing its
chief wealth by manufacturing i'm
ported raw materials and selling them
abroad benefits by free trade because
it must get its materials with which
to do business from outside. In such a
case, a nation imposing a tariff would
be taxing itself for the privilege of
doing business. Second, a relatively
sparsely settled country, the chief
produce Of which is raw materials, but
which is seeking to establish industries
for manufacture, can afford to impose
a tariff because it does not require
absolutely the goods of the outside
world and to admit such goods freely
would retard the development of local
manufactures.
Examples of Free Trade and
Protection
In modern times the two outstand-
ing examples of such nations hav>
been England, an island with more
Il an 8 5000, 900 population, the chief
wealth of which arises from manufac-
tured goods; and the United States, q
territory of continental extent witt
only twice as many inhabitants, whose
chief wealth consists in raw materials
of agriculture and mines.
England is a free trade countr
| additionally and the United States
high tariff land.
But In recent years the tremendous
advance of industry in the United
| States and the inflow of our manufac-
tured goods and those of other coun-
tries to England, have served to break
down the old traditions. There have
been strong ~leanings in this country
toward freer opportunities to manu-
f~acture and sell here or r~e-expOrt for.
eign commodities and England hus
found it desirable to impose customs
duties on some imports.
England's duties apply chiefly to lux
uries and to goods which compete
with her own manufactures but hel
ne wpolicy is chiefly %espoused for the
purpose of raising badly needed rev
IT, Ia froo trodn tradition hae
been but slightly shaken and, if nor
NAL times return. it is likely some OF
her existing tariff levies may be re-
moved or reduced.
The United States really is severa.
countries under one government. There
are geographical divisions which pre-
sent the sharpest contrasts. New
England. for instance, is a region com
parable to England itself from the
viewpoint of ~congested manufactures
and negligible agricultural and other
raw production.
This is where the free port ides
comes ia. Under its operation, certain
cities, parts Of cities or even larger
sections could take all the advantage
OF the British free trade policy for the
purpose Of obtaining duty-free commod
tiles to fabricate and re-export while
keeping the rest of the country pro
tected against an inflow of 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 and against
free ports may be stated as follows:
arguments For and Against Free Port,
Free ports would cut customs REQ
tape and attract cargoes to such ports
for transshipment and forwarding
whether or not they were to be manu-
featured. This would bring freights
to American ships.
New markets for foreign goods
would be established and American
manufacturers would gain the advant-
age of ~consignments from all over the
world.
By concentrating business in free
ports, vastly increased harbor and ter
minal facilities could be provided eco
nomically.
Free ports would simplify the sys'
: tenn of bonded warehouses.
Free ports would save the large sums
which must be employed as customs
bonds under the present law. Now
when goods are brought into the coun'
try, 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
subsidy. 1t is not to be forgotten