Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-21
NEW TARIFF PLAN
OUTLINED IN HOUSE
Representative Fort Pro-
poses Establishment of New
List From Free Commodities.
Continued From First PageD

Continued From First Pageo
into one of four classes. There is, first,
the class including Bibles, bread, works
of art, etc, which are on the free list
as matter of public policy Second,
there Is the class which Is not produced
at all in the United States, such as
rubber, coffee, etc, which Congress as
a matter of policy has determined shall
not be used for revenue purposes. Third,
there is the class of which we produce
some but not enough for our needs,
such as hides and gypsum. Fourth,
there is the class of which we can pro-
duce enough for our home consumption
but on which generally we can under
sell the world in our own market, either
by virtue of efficiency of manufacture,
as in the case of shoes, or freight ad-
vantageS, as in the case of phosphate
rock.
Question Of Policy.
GAS to the first two of these classes
the question as to whether they go on
the free list or have duty is major
question OF public policy not involving
the protective principle in any way, and
Congress should not delegate any power
over such articles to the Tariff Com
mission or the President. AS to the
third and fourth classes, however, they
are as much entitled to the benefit of
the protective principle il they prove
TO need 1t as any other commodities.
History shows us that tariff revisionS
are never less than seven or eight years
apart. In that period, as happened to
cement and brick on the seaboard since
the passage OF the Fordney- McCumber
act, serious trouble may arise through
M ~ 80 nh
ter transportation or new competitive
conditions abroad. 1t seems an illogical
absurdity as to commodities which may
need protection to require them to wait
IL on the free list. seven or eight years
for relief while permitting the PreSi-
dent, on the report of the Tariff Com
mission, to modify rates fixed by Con-
gress in the range of so per cent up or
down, or, in other words, an amount
equivalent to the entire duty fixed by
Congress.
LAS to the commodities in the third
and fourth classes now on the free list,
therefore, such as hides, leather, har-
ness, shoes, phosphate rock, vegetable
oils, etc. it is suggested that they be
set up in separate class on which
there should be fixed a merely NOM
inal-say one per cent-rate of duty;
but that as to such commodities there
shall also be fixed by Congress a max
imum rate of possible duty which, in
the Judgment of Congress, shall prove
sufficient in any event to be protective.
The President should be authorized, on
of the Tariff Commits
sion, to fix the rate at any point be-
tween the minimum and the maximum,
and should be authorized so to proceed
upon proof that quantity importations
of the article have reached a point
which Is absorbing a greater proportion
of domestic consumption than had
been the case-say, had ex-
ceeded the imports Of the last IL months
before Congress passed the last tariff
bill.
Nominal Duty.
"This type of flexible provis on is
needed in cases where the duty liked is
merely nominal, since, of course, the
so per cent increase or decrease in
rate is useless.
This proposal, If adopted, would
probably prevent foreign producers from
increasing their capacity in the hope
Of entering the American market pend
ing the adoption of a new tariff bill
some years hence. 1t would also permit
the Executive to secure definite aSsur-
anceS that action on his part, in the
direction of increased duty, would not
be followed by disproportionate in
In some cases, by any IN
the cost of the finished ar
ticle to the American consumer.
If such provision had been in the
McCumber act the cement,
lumber and brick industries would prob
ably have needed no relief in this bill,
fnsn fnN mo 10
no effort to flood our market. Similarly,
today it would be the best form of pro-
lection, for example, to live cattle,
which need little or no duty against
current importationS, but may need
more than a cent and one half II the
foot and-mouth disease is conquered in
other lands and the embargo lifted; or
to shoes, which probably need no duty
against last years imports, but will need
a substantial one II Czechoslovakia
further increases its capacity in the eff
fort to get our market.
THE only objection that have heard
10 this proposal Is that it delegates too
much of the power of Congress to the
Executive. To me this is not convinc-
ng. for two reasons. First, as I have
said. it is unjust to delegate, as We do,
power to modify rate once fixed in a
hundred per cent range and then re-
fuse to delegate any power to protect
an industry solely because it does not
happen to need protection at the mo-
nent we happen to be considering
tariff bill.
Unless We are prepared-which am
glad We are not to consider tariff
revision annually. we should place this
power somewhere else, carefully safe
guarding its use. The second reason is
hat Congress, 1t seems to me- has lost
nothing but trouble in its delegation of
>ther like poWerS-aS, for example, over
'ailroad rates. / believe we will be a
stronger body, both in fact and in the
public mind, II we rid ourselves of as ,
many detail and administrative matters
IS possible, for we will then have
what sometimes we now lack-time for
he thoughtful consideration of matters
If vital public policy. Let us make the
'ulSs and declare the policies and let
somebody else attend to the details.
This would more certainly make us a
greater parliamentary body than will
nsiStence on our power over details"
Mr.. Fort defended stoutly the Hawley
,aritf bill as 1t was drafted by the ways
he tariff is no longer, as 1t was called |
some years ago, "a local issue" but had |
become a national issue. THE policy |
If protection" he said, "has become |
70 firmly established that no practical |
man seriously thinks the Nation can |
md will abandon the principal of pro-
ection." Not even the Democrats, he