Evening star., 1949-05-29

ments will be examined with thor
oughness. The advantages OF tn,
system will be strongly upheld
But at the same time desperate
efforts will be made to retain th'
so-called peril points" provision
written into the law by the Re
publican S0th Congress to assure
the inclusion of escape clauses
in the many agreements entered
into.
Presidents Hand Strong
Indeed, the old question OF th'
protective tariff for the benefit O
American industry and the pro-
lection Of American labor. ma!
raise It's head again. an ISSUE
which decades ago was . principa
bone of contention between tn
Democratic and Republican par
ties. This Is not because Repub'
licans are intent upon abandonini
the trade agreements system ant
returning to the old log-rollini
xeneraI revisions of the tariff laws
but because Of the administrator
Of the trade agreements act.
Not since the passage Of tn
emoot- Hawley Tariff Act In 1880
during the Hoover administration
has Congress attempted q genera
revision of the customs duties
That law, revising many OF tn
duties upward, followed by nearly
a decade another Republican tar
iff act, the McCumber-FordneJ
Act. put through soon after the
COP regained control OF tn,
Government following the firs1
World War. Together these tarir
laws were charged with having
raised trade barriers which made
it impossible for the foreign ma
tions to pay their debts to the
United States. And when the
Democrats again came into power
the then Secretary of State, Cor
dell Hull, drove hard and success
fully for an effective reciprocal
trade agreements system. No ef-
fort was made, nor has been made
since. for a general tariff revision
The trade agreements acts nave
beer, 4 tremendous delegation OF
power to the Chief Executive by
Congress, which under the Consti-
tuition is given the power and right
of levying customs duties. Under
these acts, the President is EN-
powered to make agreements witt
foreign countries in the matter OF
tariffs. He was at first limited te
cuts in the duties UP to so per cen,
of the duties imposed by the
Smoot- -Hawley Act. Today, how
ever, he can cut SO per cent below
the level of duties in effect Janu-
ary /, 1945-which means duties
can be cut rs per cent below the
rates established by the Smoot-
Hawleyy Act. This does not mean
that all tariff duties have been Gu,
to any such extent. 1t does mean
that where the administration has
found 1t advisable to make con-
cessions to foreign nations-in ra-
turn for trade concessions on their
part-cuts have been made.
Test Came Last Year
It took q long time to get the
present trade agreements system
into q working. going operation
Early efforts date back to the days
of Woodrow Wilson, and to the
Tariff Acts Of 1922 and 1s30-but
no agreements were entered into
In 1884 the Trade Agreements Act
much as 1t has existed since. was
passed and Mr.. Hull went to work
to make 1t effective. 1t was his
ambition to develop fully such
system, an ambition he had had
when he was q Senator and q
Representative.
The first important agreement
was entered into with Canada, In
1895. Then came other agree
ments, and the most important
with the United Kingdom, cover
ing many items. War broke out ir
1889. A considerable number Of
trade agreements with other ma
tions continued to be made, but
with the world In q turmoil and
the United States becoming more
and more the supplier Of markets
everywhere, there could be no real
test Of the effect Of these agree
ments on American industry. 1r
the immediate postwar years. 194f
and l947, every one. in this coun-
try and elsewhere. was buying
everything they could get. Worlc
shortages, growing out OF years ol
war and war production. made thu
tariff rates no hindrance to trade
When the markets began to leve
of In 1s48 and Europe's produc-
tion increased. the first opportu.
nifty for q test of the trade agree
nnents was at hand. The average
rate of customs duties IN 194t
upon all imports, with the free lis'
included (articles which enter the
United States without duty. was
81 per cent, the lowest in history
This average rate for the firs'
three months of 1949 has been re-
duced to 5.3 per cent.
Agreement May Grow
The average rate Of duty h
1881 (including the free list) wa.
l7.S per cent: In 1884, 1874 pei
cent: In 1896. 1868 per cent. and
In 1899, 144 per cent. Taking thu
dutiable list into consideration
alone, In 1891 the average rate o.
duty was 53.z per cent; In 1884
<6.7 per cent: In 1886, 39.3 pei
cent, and In 1899. 37.3 per cent
These reductions In the rate o.
duty upon all imports made int.
the United States could not. how
ever, be traced to trade agree.
ments-since In those years tn,
agreements had either not been II
effect or had been Of no materia
extent. There were other causes
Since 1916 the downward tren,
~ ths average rate az custom