Evening star., 1940-01-11

q To-Day at q House ways ana
Act. "A. P. Photo.
atty duties on the goods of coun-
tries refusing to accord us equality.
I cite as typical instances of this
the provisions of the Payne-Aldrich
bill, section BIT of the Tariff Act of
1922, passed in the Harding admin
istration, and section 1913 of the
Tariff Act of 1880, passed In the
Hoover administration. OF neces-
sity, If our Government Is to insist
on equal treatment, 1t must be pre-
pared to accord 1t to others. That
is all that there is to the general
ization Of concessions under the
MISREPRESENTATION policy in its
unconditional form, which as stated
is simply the principle Of equality.
When we extend to other pun-
tries which do not discriminate
against our goods the benefit of
concessions granted in individual
trade agreements, we thereby in
sure equality of treatment for our
exports over an area far larger
than that covered by the trade
agreements themselves. This is not
a case OF giving away something for
nothing. So far we have safeguard
ed in this manner volume of eX-
ports several times greater than the
value of trade on which we have
granted generalization of conces-
sions to non-agreement countries.
The policy of equal treatment is not
only an indispensable means of de-
Tending our trade against the blight
Of discriminatory practices in other
countries, but one of the most pow
erful instruments for placing inter-
national trade relations upon a
basis of fair dealing and friendli-
ness, without which commerce can
not prosper.
BY enacting the trade agreements
program, the Congress authorized
limited adjustments of our tariff
rates as means of promoting our
foreign trade through securing SIM
liar adjustments of excessive trade
barriers in other countries. It was
obviously the intent of the Con-
gress that. in the process of nego-
tiating trade agreements, our own
domestic producers should be helped
rather than hurt. submit that, in
carrying out the program, the ex-
ecutive branch of the Government
has willingly and scrupulously COM
piled with this intent of the Con-
gress.
We have reduced duties only in
those cases in which after a most
careful examination of all relevant
factors, it was found that existing
duties were unnecessarily and un-
duly burdensome, and we have done
so only in those cases in which other
countries have agreed to accord
better treatment to our exports in
return for tariff adjustments on our
part. We have reduced duties only
to the extent to which, after an
equally careful examination, it was
found that such adjustments would
not be prejudicial to any established
branch of production in agriculture,
in mining, or in manufacturing in
dustry. Where necessary, as an ad-
ditional safeguard, we have limited
the amount of imports which would
be permitted to come in at the re-
duced rate of duty.
In adjusting tariff rates we have
kept well within the limits pre-
scribed by the Congress. We have
gone about the matter as effectively
and as scientifically as possible, al
ways keeping in mind both the po-
sition of the particular branches
Of production affected and the in
terests of the Nation as a whole.
No evidence of serious injury has
been adduced in the assertions and
allegations which have been put
forward by the opponents and critics
of the trade-agreements program.
Naturally, in some individual cases,
producers have had to make ad-
justments to the new rates. Gen.
orally speaking, because Of the
moderate, painstakingly considered,
and carefully safeguarded nature of
the duty reduction made in the
trade agreements, such adjustments
have not occasioned serious diff
Guilty. They have been helped by
the general improvement of domes-
tic conditions and expansion of do
mestic markets resulting in part
from the increase of our exports.
Allegations of Injury
Assailed by Secretary.
In an overwhelming number of
cases, allegations of injury in con-
nection with each of the agree
ments we have negotiated have
been made before the particular
agreement was concluded, at time
when no one, not even those who
were engaged in the negotiations,
knew whether the duty on a par
ticular commodity would be re-
duced, and if reduced, to what
extent. Frequently, allegations OF
injury are made with respect to
commodities on. which existing
duties have not been reduced, or
with respect to commodities which
were left on the free list even by the
authors of the Hawley-Smoot tariff,
In my entire experience, I do not
recall a more fragrant and un-
scrupulous suppression and misuse
Of material facts on an issue which
is of vital significance to every citi-
zen, every home, every farm and
every factory.
The loudest assertions Of injury
have been made in connection with
agriculture. What are the facts?
Farmers, as all other producers,
reckon their well-being basjcally in
terms of the income which they re-
ceive. BY the end of 1882, after two
and one-hAH years Of Hawley-
emoot tari6 embargoes, farm cash