Evening star., 1937-10-31
Reciprocal Trade Benefits.

Kansas to conduct 'grass-roots cam
paign" against the reciprocal trade
agreements program has given Mr.. Hull,
spearhead of the American policy of
economic peace, occasion to rush to the
defense of the project so near to the
Secretary of States heart. Since its in
ception. in 1884, reciprocal agreements
have been concluded with sixteen ma
tions, ten of them in this hemisphere
Cuba, Haiti, Brazil, Canada, Honduras,
Colombia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ell
Salvador and Costa Rica. The six other
pacts were made with Belgium, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France
and Switzerland. Negotiations are pend
ing with Czechoslovakia and Great
Britain.
The previously rapid rate of progress
achieved in the conclusion of these give
and-take tariff bargains slowed up not
ably during the past year, for obvious
reasons. presidential campaign, which
habitually halts constructive effort in
foreign relations, intervened. 1t was not
until last June that the administrators
new reciprocal powers were renewed for
an additional three years. Since then
the State Department has resumed its
endeavors to promote the policy which
is designed not only to safeguard Amer
ica's foreign trade under conditions
promising the maximum of stability, but
also offers the only solid foundation for
peace.
Because Senator Capper denounced
the trade agreements program as a dis
guised method of selling out the farmer
for the benefit of Eastern manufac-
turers," Secretary Hull, in his spirited
reioinder. concentrates on refutation OF
that charge.
Convincing facts and figures are ad-
duced to demonstrate that the S699, ,000,-
600 increase in value of agricultural i'm
ports from 1884 to 1887, or SO per cent,
assumes far less onlinous aspect when
broken down into its basic causes. OF
the amount in question, 1882 900 is
represented by products not grown in
the United States or substituted for
domestic farm products. A sum of s141,-
100000 applies to products the imports
of which were affected by the great
droughts of 1884 and 1886. Sugar &C
counted for s45,OOO,0OO. To the extent
of s17SoOo,ooO the agricultural import
increase covered products normally i'm
ported in large quantities because We
cannot produce enough of them at rea-
sonable prices to supply our needs. Only
S83, 100000 of the gross increase remains
as residual of small items distributed
through all of the above categories ex-
cept sugar.
"The assumption that large imports
of agricultural produce denote distress to
American farmers is not warranted"
Secretary Hull asserts. He points out
that such imports exceeded s2,0O0,0O0,000
every year from 1925 to 1929, while in
none of those years was domestic pro-
duction curtailed by drought to anything
like the 1886 extent. While American
agricultural tariff concessions granted
to foreign countries have been unimpor-
tant to our farmers, Mr.. Hull contends,
the value of kindred concessions obtained
by us is considerable. The latter repre-
sent about third of our 1925 farm
exports to the nations with which agree
ments were concluded. Agricultural
duties applicable to almost another third
of imports have been pegged against in
creases during the life of the agreements,
thus bringing up to some so per cent
the value of all agricultural products
favorably affected.
Not the least clinching argument IN
the Hull retort to the distinguished
Kansas farm leader is the reminder that
direct foreign concessions on Our farm
exports by no means exhaust trade
agreement benefits to agriculture. What
is altogether too commonly ignored" Mr..
Hull emphasizes, ''is that when increased
foreign outlets are secured for our in
dustrial exports, that inevitably results
In expansion of economic activity and
employment in our cities, and hence
better market at home for American