Evening star., 1929-06-24
The Tariff and the Farmer.

Does the protective tariff aid the
American farmer? Both Senator Brock
hart of Iowa, Republican, and Repre-
sentative Cordell Hull Of Tennessee,
Democrat, issued statements yesterday
belittling the benefits of the protective
tariff to agriculture. Judging from the
number and persistence of the farmer
witnesses appearing before the Senate
finance committee In support OF more
and higher duties on farm products, the
American farmers do not take similar
view of the situation. Indeed, seri-
Gus move toward the removal OF pro-
tective duties from the products OF the
farm would cause an uproar OF vast
proportions in this country.
The Senator from Iowa, however, 10
not proposing any such radical step. He
merely wishes to have the taFih duties
on farm products increased while the
duties on articles which the farmer has
to buy are to be reduced. His particu-
lar attack is directed at the House tariff
bill, which Is now before the Senate
finance committee for consideration.
In that measure, Senator Brookhart
sees an effort to give greatly increased
protection to many manufactured aFti-
Giles benefiting the industrialists. but
working q hardship on the farmers and
other consumers. Mr.. Hull insisted that
agriculture for the 99th time is to be
hoodwinked and humbugged by prolinc
promises Of effective tariff that are
fraud and q swindle save as to Ger
tain minor specialties." Both Senator
Rrookhart and Representative Hull
agree that the comparatively few agri-
cultural tariffs are effective.
A coalition between Republicans and
Democrats In the Senate, during the
consideration of the tariff bill, may re-
suit in bringing about more moderate
revision of the tariff than Is contained
in the House bill. Such q revision
would accord more nearly with the
recommendation Of President Hoover.
VINO urged upon Congress limited re-
vision" Of the tariff only. A similar
coalition, however, promises to write
into the tariff bill the so-called export
dsbenture plan Of farm aid which was
flnaIly rejected In connection with the
nav farm relief law. If the country
should be compelled to choose between
the Hawley tarin bill ss 1t passed the
House and the depenture plan, the
choice would, in all probability, be in
favor Of the former. Some Of the rates
in the Hawley bill are too high. II q
coalition In the Senate can reduce them,
% much the better. But If the price
for these reductions is to be the deben-
ture clause, adopted by the same coali-
ton, it would be too high.
A reduction of rates carried In the
Hawley bill, with no debenture clause
added to the measure, is . result to be
hoped for when the tariff bill Is finally
passed by the Senate. The forces work
ing In that direction are, to some de-
gree, opposed to each other when IT
comes to the debenture plan. It has
become evident, however, that the de-
benture plan stands no chance of being
written into law. No one has the slight
est doubt that President Hoover would
veto the proposition, whether it came
to him In the tariff bill, or any other
bill, or as an independent measure. IT
Is that fact which in the end may pre-
vent its inclusion in the tariff bill, for,
after all, there Is considerable ma
1ogity In both houses Of Congress which
1avors some tariff revision.
There viii be In the Senate num-
ber Of Senators on the Republican side,
who stood stoutly by the President In
his opposition to debenture when the
farm bill was before that body, who win
Join with insurgent Republicans and
Democrats In a demand for lower duties
on some Of the manufactured products
than those contained in the House bill.
The hope for q more moderate revision
of the tariff than the House bill pro-
vides lies in those Republicans as well
rs In the debenturites.