Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-26

this the average voter does not DO
much thinking about the tariff. He
demic argument. however elevated, on
the relative virtue Of protection and
low tariff.
But the average voter would take
prompt notice of any specific tariff
rate which seemed to threaten the
stability of the industry out Of which
he draws profits or wages. And that Is
what every Senator and every Repre-
sentative knows.
The country is not interested In any
abStruSeneSSeS about the economic or
moral virtues of any tariff theory. So
far as groups of citizens are interested
at all, they support those who tell them
that protection is good Quite a few
groups-notably organized labor-have
gone formally and strongly on record in
favor of high protection. (Some
groups call it adequate protection.')
But in all the tariff arguments and
writer's desk each morning, or that he
hears in Congress, there is never any
statement by any group or representa-
tive Of group demanding tariff revision
downward as a broad policy.
Importers Seek Low Tariff.
No doubt there is at least one group,
the importers in a few seaboard cities,
who, in their own self-interest, would
like a low tariff. But one does not hear
of them in Congress. The present writ
er cannot recall any one in Congress
speaking up for the importers. Even if
the importers do want low tariff, they
do not constitute any exception to the
general rule. The general rule Is that
there is not In Congress. or In the
country, or among the lobbyists or prop
agandists, any group or any formidable
spokesman arguing in favor Of lower
tariffs as national policy.
That is the record as of today. There
is no sign that the condition will
change during the period of the present
debate. II a change comes at all it
will probably come from spokesman of
the farmers, Western and Southern
But the change is improbable. The
spokesman of the farmer have already
gone on record in favor of protection.
They have done so in several ways. In
part they-at least the ones in the
Senate-have done so by voting for the
debenturee plan, which plan takes pro-
lection for granted-and merely de-
mands that the farmer shall. as to all
crops, get his share of protection.
If one provokeS a conversation about
the principle of the tariff, one will find
many individuals who will say, "Of
course, in theory believe in free trade.
but" Many others will say, "Of
course, in theory believe in a tariff
for revenue only, but"
One will find a good many persons
who will say, as to the industry Of agri-
culture. Il think that farming would
ultimately become a growing industry
and would increase at the expense of
other industries, if we would remove
from all other industries the artificial
aid which we have given them through
protection for 40 years, but"
In all cases the qualifying "but" Is
the same. The phrase in which 1t is
expressed Is the same. Always it Is "but
we as a nation can't get off the stills
on which we raised ourselves forty and
more years ago" The "stilt'' they have
In mind is protection, and something
in addition to protection. It is the stils
Of the high standard Of living which
we have in America.
Would Lower Living Standard.
1t is almost universally assumed, and
rarely denied, that to remove protection
certainly to remove it suddenly or ali
at once-Would take away the silt Of
our higher standard of living Even per-
sons who are willing to contemplate
general tariff reduction, admit that the
first and immediate consequence would
be lower standard of living than we
now have. They admit we should have
a pretty trying experience for consid-
cradle length Of time, even if-and this
if might be long deferred-we should
stilts. The trying experience, so long
as 1t lasted, would be felt by everybody,
including the farmer.
However. all this is academic. all
theory-and one prefers to get away
from theory. Combining ourselves to a
statement Of existing conditions at
that there is no formidable, or even
considerable. body of sentiment in
America calling for policy Of general
tariff reduction in the direction of a
tariff for revenue only. There Is no
such body in the country and there
is no such group within Congress. If
there were such sentiment in the coun-
try. We should hear it at the Capitol,
and we do not hear it there.
When one lone Congressman (from
Georgia diStricD declared that he
believes in free trade, it was an event.
Paradoxically, the event was a sensation
in the press, because of its rarity, and
made no impression in Congress, be-
cause everybody knew 1t would amount
to nothing.
Occasionally-but very occasionally
there Is in Congress an exposition of
the low tariff point of view. But there
start toward carrying the tariff debates
into an old-fashioned discussion Of con-
trasting economic theories, such as
Congress used to provide in the days
of Walker, Benton, Blaine, Dingley, Clay
and others.
LoEier Makes Genuine Speech.
Representative Lozier of Missouri last
week made a genuine, throughgoing
low tariff speech, careful exposition
of what he called the fallacieS of pro-
lection. He enumerated them, in six
headings. In support of his view he
introduced quotations from the classic
arguments of English and older Amer
lean authorities. He referred to and
the marginal contribution theory and
other theories of the classic economists.
He quoted Adam Smith and John Stuart
Mill and David A. Wells and Sundry liv-
ing academic authorities in American
colleges. But he made no impression
on the House and did not alter the
course of the tariff debate by a hairs
breadth-because he ran head-on
against certain beliefs which, whether
sound of not. are now almost uni
held by the masses of voters.
Representative Lozier made persua-
sive argument that high wages are not
caused by protection-at least, not by
protection alone. But Mr.. LoZierS
theory however worthy in an academic
sense, ran into head-on collision with
. very hard political fact-the fact that
organized labor is about the most vehe-
ment and insistent of the American
groups that demand a protective tariff
md h{oh ma The Testimony that