Evening star., 1948-04-21
Business Deficiency of Tariff Act

To the Editor Of The Star:
When the Democrats won the 1882 election,
one of their solemn promises to the people
was that the lawful" 1880 Tariff Act would be
abolished. Congress, in 1884. enacted the
Reciprocal" Trade Agreements Act which per-
mitted the President to make agreements with
foreign countries for the reciprocal lowering
of trade barriers. Since 1884 many OF these
agreements have been consummated, result
ing in q substantial cut in the American tarin
level Incidentally, approximately two-thirds
Of all imports were and are completely free OF
any tariff or other import control under the
1880 Tariff Act.
AS far as the United States was concerned,
these trade pacts were actually "tarih agree
ments" since, in contrast to other nations,
tariffs were about the only regulatory device
used by the United States to control imports.
Reciprocity was the keynote OF the publicity
surrounding these agreements, and the country
welcomed q chance to do some good old
Yankee horse trading, aimed at increasing
world trade. 1t appeared to be a sound, sensible
business proposition.
The agreements negotiated between 1884 ana
1948 resulted in a number OF complaints from
protected domestic industries, but only few
were able to show any serious injury as
result OF increased WdlS ia GuAoPO
and Asia, preparation for war at home, and
finally the war itself slowed down imports,
and the full effect of the major tariff agree
ments negotiated with Canada, France, tho
United Kingdom, Turkey Czechoslovakia, Cuba.
Brazil, Mexico and others has not been meas
urable in terms of increased imports and
probable injury to American industry, labor
and farmers
nrfh hoc hanp
intervals with the exception of 1943 when q
two-year extension was granted. 1t will expire
on June IL of this year unless renewed again.
At each successive renewal, the sound business
appeal of making reciprocal" agreements has
been forced into the background by the un-'
certainty of world conditions. More and more
the clinching arguments of the proponents Of
the act have been based on political con-
siderations-wo peace and good will.
The campaign plan for extension this year
seems to be based even more upon the peace
and good will" argument. One Of the reasons
cited for the original passage Of the act and
the first extension in 1887 was that it would
help prevent war. 1t did not prevent the war.
We wonder If an extension could preserve the
precarious peace.
In the 1947 congressional hearings the State
Department, women's clubs church groups,
peace organizations, voters leagues and others
pointed to the political state of the world rs
the prime reason why the act should be con-
tinued and more agreements negotiated.
twenty-five agreements were negotiated in
l947, yet the political state Of the world con-
tinues to get worse.
The Presidents recent message requesting .
three-year extension the appeals of the State
Department, the recently created Citizens Com
mittee for Reciprocal World Trade, the League
of Women Voters, all groups requesting re-
newal of the act this year. IS well rs its
administration by the State Department, seem
to completely ignore the business angle OF the
extension. Because Of this tobacco exporters
and other farm and business examinations