Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-07
ny WILLIAM HARD.


Are the Democrats preparing to with
dve w tariff protection from the products
of the farmers? And are the Repuo-
lican Progressives tending toward that
same policy?
such is the chief speculation aroused
nv the proceedings in Washington since
the announcement by the Canadians OF
their new tariff duties.
Leading Democrats have declared that
those duties are 'retaliations" against
us for the "exorbitant" duties imposed
by us against Canadian products in our
present new Hawley-Smoot tarin law.
Some leading Republican Progressives
have taken the same view. The impll-
cation is that they would reduce or
cancel the duties which the Canadians
have found obnoxious and irritating In
| our tariff legislation now in force.
But those duties are duties on Ca
madam agricultural products and were
enacted on behalf of our farmers and
| at the insistent request OF the Leaders
of our farm organizations.
The same thing is true about the new
! United States duties which have pecul-
iarly irritated and enraged the Argen-
| tinians. Argentina and Canada are the
| two countries in which resentment
against the Hawley-6moot tarlh law
has been most ardently expressed In ac-
| ton or in threatened action. They are
| the two star instances Of alleged re
taliatory" behavior, present or to come
In both cases the "retaliatory' nature
| of the behavior is open TO some hlstorl-
cal question. Argentina, for instance.
has been engaged in high-tarif1 activi-
| ties for many years. Our expectations
| of shoes to Argentina provide glaring
example. We used to send an immense
number of shoes to Argentina. We now
| send very few comparatively the rea-
son is a high Argentinian duty on shoes.
This duty, however, was not imposed In
retaliation" against the HaWiey-Smoot
! tariff law. 1t began to be imposed &C
tually before the late Great War.
~
Similarly in Canada. Prime Minister
Bennett many years ago. as leader OF
the Canadian Conservative party, was
advocating precisely the sort of Ca
! madam tariff wall which he is now
erecting. He is accomplishing, as prime
minister, only what he long ago prom
| ised to accomplish in case he should
ever become prime minister.
Both Argentina and Canada are
| strongly nationalistic and are deter
mined to build UP industries which will
| produce in some degree a strong ma
| tionalistic industrial self sufhciency.
The exact sober truth probably is that
| high-tariff tendencies in Argentina and
| in Canada existed long prior to the
| Hawley-Smoot tariff law, but have been
/ somewhat accelerated by resentment
against that law. This resentment has
BEEN extremely useful to Argentinian
and Canadian statesmen who deslred-to
, make their countries into high-tariff in
dustrialized countries anyway.
The practical point thereupon for the
United States is as follows:
What can the United States do to
appease the Canadians and the Argen-
tinians and to dissuade them from fur
ther drastic progress in the high-tar-
| if direction?
The only answer is to diminish the
tariff protection which we now are Civ
ing to our Agricultural interests.
Canada's chief manufactured or semi
manufactured expectation products
namely, wood pulp and newsprint paper
come into the United States wholly
free now. We cannot let them in any
freer than they are. We cannot reduce
| a duty which is already zsro.
What we could reduce are the duties
on such things as milk, cream, pota-
toes, and-especially-cattle; Inquiry
among Canadians invariably reveals
those duties as the principal source of
their outcries against our high-tariff
system. The cattle duty drives them to
an especial and peculiar height OF in
dignation.
But why and how did that duty get
| enacted? The proceedings OF the Sen
ate for February 18, 1880, tell the story.
The motion whereby the cattle duty
in the Hawley-Smoot law was raised ap-
proximately 100 per cent above the level
| at which it stood in the previous Ford
ney- McCumber law OF 1922 was made
| by Senator Connally, Democrat, OF
Texas. His motion was ardently sup
ported by Senator Brookhart, Repub-
! lican Progressive, of Iowa. Mr.. Brook
hart remarked that the duty proposed
by Mr. Connally had been unanimously
advocated by our most representative
organizations of farmers. Mr.. Brook
hart added: THE farmers have always
been given the rates they have asked"
Acting upon that truth. the Senate
adopted Mr.. Connally'S motion by vote
of ii to 4. The Democrats who voted in
favor of Mr.. Connally's motion num-
bered %. They we're:
From the South-Barkley, Black,
Blease, Brock, BrouSSard, Caraway,
Connally, Fletcher, George, Harrison,
Mcclellan, Ransdell, Sheppard, Tram
nell.
From the West-Ashurst, Bratton,
! Hawcs, Hayden, Kendrick, Pittman,
Walsh of Montana, Wheeler.
From the East-Tydings.
Then additionally the following Re
publican Progressives voted for. Mr..
Connally's motion to enact the high
tarin duty, which has so frenzied the
Canadians:
Blaine, Bo-ah, BrooKhart. Cutting,
Frazier, La Toilette, McMaster, Norbeck,
Norris, Pine, Schall.
X
Yet today, generally speaking. it Is
Democratic and Republican Progressive
publicity doctrine that the new Cana
dian tariff duties are a sort of proper
revenge upon us for the ''iniquities" OF
| the Hawley-Smoot tariff law. The in
escapable deduction is that the Demo-
Gratis and the Republican Progressives
will form coalition in the next Senate