Milford chronicle., 1927-09-23

cal treaty with France would re-
quire the approval of our Congress
before it could become effective.
Accordingly, it was noted above
that the French proposal of recipro-
city with the United States is futile
as a matter of practice. 1t is out
of this situation that the danger of
tariff war between the two coun-
tries arises.
Ii Discrimination Is Shown Presi-
dent Must Impose Additional Duties
With reciprocity thus eliminated
from consideration, at least for some
time, the United States has left to
answer" the French moves, only
certain administrative provisions in
our tariff law, of which the princi-
pal one is Section 1877. In summary
this section, the provisions of which
were obviously intended to be fight
ing weapons, provides that when
ever the President shall be salts
fled that a foreign country has in
fact Disseminated against the COM
merce of the United States, or has
imposed unequal burdensOme re-
strictions on American commerce
with that country, the President
shall impose new or additional
duties up to an equivalent of 30 per
cent ad valOrem on imports from
that country into the United States,
and he may later, if in his judgment
the public interest will be served
by so doing, place an embargo on all
L.
OF part of the importat1ons from the
country concerned.
Such a move would obviously be
most unfortunate in both its origin
and possible results, and could not
helm but have direct consequences
so far as French foreign commerce
is concerned. Seemingly this
American weapon and also the de-
tails of French importations INTO
the United States must have been
overlooked in the discussion to date
which has had France holding the
"whip-hand"
France Has More To Lose Ihah
United State In Trade War
The United States had favorable
balance of trade with France in 1876 |
amounting to $112,OC0,00O. How
ever. it should be noted that the I'M
ports from France, which amounted
TO S152. 100000 were made up large
lv of luxury items such as WORKS OF
art cosmetics, and precious ana
semi-precious stones. On the otneI
hand our exports to France, NhlcA
amounted to 1854 100000 were mace
I'm rrincipally of such important
hash, as raw cotton, refined copper
and Illuminating oils,
wheat. leaf tobacco and agricultural
machinery. From this it would
certainly seem as though France
has more to lose in a tariff war win
the United States than mas thls
Contention That French and Amerl-
.an Tariff Policies Are Similar Is
Absurd
In conclusion it might be amiss
o call attention here to the rldlcul-
,usly absurd contention being
circulated by certain of the promin-
mt free trade and low-tariff papers,
particularly in New York. They
AVE seized on the idea that France
n adopting her new tariff law is
simply following the precedent set
" the United States and to the ex-
ent that we are 'hit" by the new
french discriminatory law, France
S paying back in our own coin.
Obviously, in view of the above
analysis, the tariff policies of the
wo countries have nothing in com
non. The American law is based
IN the theory of protecting Ameri-
,an producers in the. markets of
heir own country from the possible
,uinous competition from foreign
Industries and labor. The French
aw on the other hand is primarily a
bargaining tariff under which pro-
ection to French industry seem to
1e a second consideration as COM
pared with building up as big an ex-
port trade as possible for French
merchandise.