The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-05-25
OUR DEFIANT CONGRESS.

OUR DEFIANT CONGRESS.
The Chicago Tribune says the
/ F'ordney- McCumber tariff bill will in
/ crease the cost of living. The New
/ York Herald says it makes for higher
/ living costs in every American home
/ The journal of Commerce says the
! bonus-duty on glue is a Joker and a
clear gift to the packers.
Notwithstanding the fact THAI pub
| lie opinion as set forth in editorial
| comment, even in some of the leading
Republican newspapers, SLOWS a
strong sentiment against the proposed
! tariff program, there is every indtca-
ton that the majority leaders in con-
gress are going ahead with their plans
The new tariff. if adopted, promises
to be most unpopular. 1t is being
framed in defiance of the best bust
ness sentiment of the country, in de-
fiance also of sound economic prin-
ciples. The legislative policy which
Crderlies it is being accentuated. not
by broad consideration for the ooun-
try's welfare. but with sole regard 20
mistaken idea of political cxpe-
Cheney.
The sentiments Of the business IN
terests of the country. aside from
those which expect to be directly ben
Gifted. are fairly set forth by the
Wollman Review. which says:
Legislation which concerns so
deeply the business and even the So
cial economy of the nation as a tariff
law should be inspired by the broad
est possible consideration. 1t is bad
enough to have its clauses framed for
the benefit IF so-calIed special inter-
eSts." 1t is still worse to have as the
incentive a fancied political advantage
which can accrue only TO the benefit
of few office seekers.
The protective principle in our tar
ltf legislation has received the sane
ton or experience. 1t may have been
unsourd from the standpoint of alb
stract theory, II.asmuch as it present
ed obstruction to the free internation-
al exchange of products. In practice
it worked out well. 1t enabled GER
tain industries, which were in need
Of special support, to obtain profits
that gaev them eventually q capital
strength that redounded to the good
of the country as a whole.
1t is true that the consumers of the
United States paid higher prices than
they would if they had bought cheaper
goods from abroad. They paid a tax
to certain industries in this country
The revenue that accumulated, how
ever, was employed in building up a
vast Industrial organization. It NAV
be justly commended, therefore, that
the protective tariff in the old days
was based on the principle of the
greatest good for the greatest num-
Der.
But it is impossible to arrive at
this same conclusion under existing
circumstances. Our Industries are no
longer of the struggling. infant va
riety. They are big enough and have
capital enough and are sufficiently
well organized to go out into the open
markets of the world and compete on
basis that asks no favors. They are
now in a position to return some of
the favors they have received. While
they were in the development stage,
they were entitled to ask considera-
ton of the consumers in this country.
1t is now time for the consumers to
get their return.
Following out the principle of the
greatest good for the greatest num-
Der, it would seem to be about time
for the rights of the consumer to be
recognized. Producers do not need
any more protection than is furnished
by their own efficiency and their abil-
ity to take care OF themselves. The
buying public should be protected
against exploitation. For example,
congress is talking about high tariff
duties to prevent imports of cement.
bricks and other building materials
We need lower priced building mater
ials in order to go ahead with our
construction program There is no
country IN the world that can pro-
ducs building materials so cheaply as
the United States and there is no rea-
son why the people of the country.
who are paying high rents, should be
penalized merely TO pile up profits
for Industries that ought to be on a
self-sustaining basis.