Milford chronicle., 1927-09-23
A DISCRIMINATORY
BARGAINING TARIFF
American Tariff League Answers
Free Traders Claim That New
French Law Is Similar To The
American Tariff Act

DR.. Arthur L. Faubel Secretary
of the American Tariff League, of
25 West 43rd, Street, New York, in
an analysis of the new French Tariff
sent to all members of the League
concludes with the assertion that
the French measure is primarily a
discriminatory tariff and
cannot be compared to the Ameri-
can Tariff Act which is a protective
measure, treating all countries alike,
The analysis, which appears below,
is the Leagues answer to what DR..
Faubel call the absurd contention
of the trade and low tariff press
that France is paying us back in our
own coin.
The controversy precipitated by
the adoption of the new French
tariff has within the last week de-
velOped so rapidly that talk of a
tariff war between France and the
United States is now heard.
In order to appreciate fully the
development and possibilities in the
situation a summary statement of
the French tariff policy may be
useful. France has for some time
followed the tariff policy known as
1.-The maximum and minimum
system" Under this system the
French legislative fixes a minimum,
an intermediate and a minimum
rate for practically every enumerat-
ed in the tariff act. and the lower
or minimum rates are used as the
means of securing tariff concessions
from other countries on French
products. These concessions are
obtained by the negotiation of com
mercial agreements or treaties with
foreign countries under which the
foreign country grants tariff con-
cessions and reductions to the pro-
ducts of France, and France in re-
turn accords the foreign country
most favored nation treatment,
ordinarily means that the products
of that country imported into France
pay only the minimum duties spec
flied in the French tariff.
American Goods Must Pay Maxim
um Rates
That is exactly what has happen
ed in the present instance, Germany |
being the beneficiary of the French |
most favored nation treatment, pay
ing the minimum duties, while a |
long list of imports from the United |
States to France pays the maximum
rates, which are four times the
minimum. The American COM
modities affected are covered by a
French decree Withdrawing the most
favored nation treatment. The eff
feet upon American export business
with France has been aggravated
due to the fact that on some of the
commodities affected, Germany and
the United States have been the
principal competitors in the French
markets.
The French procedure will be an
attempt to negotiate as many conf
mercial treaties as possible grant
ing concessions to French products
in return for the French minimum
duties. Such a treaty with Belgium
is now practically completed.
France has answered the Ameri~
can protests against the treatment |
accorded our products with two
principal points" First, that the
present arrangement with Germany
is reciprocal, France obtaining con-
cessions from Germany in return
for having granted Germany most
favored nation treatment, and Oh
fering the United States the same |
treatment in return for American |
concessions on French imports into |
this country. Pending the conclus-
ion of such an agreement, France |
agrees to a so per cent reduction in
the present duties on affected |
American exports, which would |
mean that these exports would pay !
twice instead of four times the |
minimum duties, but France Will |
agree to the principle of reciprocity. |
The second point in the French
defense" is that if the Dawes plan
is not to break down, the time has |
come when all of the countries re-
ceiving German reparations are un-
der the necessity of granting TO |
Germany most favored nation treat
ment on her exports.
According to the Whaley-Eaton
foreign letter on September IL,
these two French arguments would
seem to indicate:
Q A concerted European move
to force revision of the American
tariff at an early date by bringing
pressure to bear upon Americas
growing export trade.
(2) A refusal by France to ac-
uuisce in a downward revision OF
Dawes annuities."
To what extent Frances second
argument in connection with the
Dawes reparations has weight can
only be determined after more
thorough consideration of the pre-
sent operation of the Plan.
French Reciprocity Demand Futile
Her first argument, calling for
reciprocity with the United States
is much more to the point theoreti-
cally, but, it happens, is totally
futile as a matter of practice. Our
experience with reciprocity thus far
has been neither particularly ex-
tensive nor especially hopeful as a
nrecedent. Certain of our previous
tariff acts-those of 1890 and 1897,
for example have provided for
limited kind of reciprocity with
foreign countries, which, however,
came to little. In 1911, we moved
further in the direction of recipro-
citv than ever before or since, when
our Congress actually approved
reciprocal trade treaty with Canada.
This fell through, however, when
tbe Canadian Parliament refused to
ratify the agreement, supposedly