CAMBRIDGE, MASS

VOLUME LVI—No. 7.

SHOULD WE HAVE TARIFF COMMISSION?

Views Expressed by National Legislators as to Whether or Not It Is Desirable.

In a reply to the invitation to senators and representatives in Congress of an expression of their views regarding the creation of a "permanent non-partisan" Tariff commission the following additional letters have been received:

Senator Penrose of Pennsylvania.
UNITED STATES SENATE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

PHILADELPHIA, Pa., August 5, 1915. A Tariff commission is all right to investigate industrial conditions and report in advance on costs and other items involved in production here and abroad. The ultimate determination of Tariff schedules, however, must be with the American Congress, which is the only body authorized under the Constitution to levy taxes. We have in both branches of Congress men of many years' experience in Tariff legislation, who are on the Finance Committee of the Senate and on the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives. Much misunderstanding seems to exist regarding a non-partisan Tariff commission. There always have been two kinds of economic thought in the United States, that of Free-Trade and that of Protection. As long as these two views exist it is ridiculous to talk about a non-partisan Tariff commission. Free-Traders and Protectionists can hardly be expected to meet in harmony on a Tariff bill. I believe in a Protective Tariff, adequate to produce results beneficial to American industry, framed by the duly elected representatives of the people and adjusted from time to time to the changing needs of the country. As a matter of fact, Congress has at hand data and information that can be readily utilized. This information comes from experts attached to committees of Congress, from the Treasury Department, from the Department of Commerce and Labor and from other agencies of the Government, not to mention the very full hearings which are generally given the business interests of the country who, in the full light of publicity, have an opportunity to submit their views to the Congressional committees. The war in Europe has pointed out the necessity of a strong Tariff law, adequately Protective, which will make this nation industrially inde pendent of Europe. The best illustration of this fact is in the chemical schedule. That schedule always has been weakened in our Tariff laws at the request of the manufacturers who wanted their materials free or at a very low duty. The consequence is that no dyestuff is produced in this country, and we have permitted ourselves to remain at the mercy of German syndicates and trusts, and now we are deprived of European importations by the war.

the

There is every indication that the country is strongly Republican and that we will elect a Republican President and a House of Representatives, and I hope a Republican Senate. In that case the Republicans will doubtless meet in extra session immediately after the 4th of March, 1917, as was done in the case of the Dingley bill and the Payne bill, and will promptly pass an adequate Protective measure adjusted to the needs of the country. Our country will then no longer be at the mercy of the cheap labor abroad, which will be ready to dump its low-price products upon the American market after the close of the war. Protection and

July 31, 1915. Referring to your editorial of July 23, regarding the permanent non-partisan Tariff commission, I agree with this editorial in the main, if not entirely. I am in favor of a Tariff commission to gather information upon which to base a Protective Tariff, and I would be in favor of a Tariff commission empowered to make changes in the Tariff upon a Protective standard declared by Congress. A non-partisan Tariff commission would be a farce. A Tariff commission to carry out a Free-Trade or Democratic Tariff-for-revenue-only law would be useless, but a Tariff commission formed with the avowed purpose of carrying out the Protective policy, and composed of men who believe in encouraging home development and in promoting American industries by affording them ample Protection against foreign competition, would be a good thing. It might be well to have one ог two members of the commission believers in the Democratic doctrine of revenue only as a sort of brake, but the majority of the commission should be heartily in favor of the Protective Tariff system. The essential thing now is to get rid of the present adversity-producing Tariff as soon as possible and replace it with a pros perity-producing Tariff. Prosperity is what we want now. When we get it we can work out the problems that come with it. Very sincerely W. L. JONES, U. S. S.

yours,

Senator Sterling of South Dakota.
UNITED STATES SENATE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

August 3, 1915. Permit me to say that I think the conclusion is hardly warranted that the leading Protectionists in both houses of Congress have declared themselves opposed to a Tariff commission. Some leading Protectionists have undoubtedly declared against such a commission, and for the reason that they distrust the ability or the will, or both, of the commission to justly and properly regulate Tariff rates. Their theory would probably be to let experts furnish the data as to cost of production, considering all the ele ments entering into such cost, and then let Congress, according to its knowledge of the prospects and needs of any particular American industry, fix a lower or higher rate of duty. This is not an unreasonable view. In practise it would involve a recognition of the principle of Protection. On the other hand, there may be found leading Protectionists who, alarmed at present tendencies, base their opposition to a Tariff commission on a general objection to further government by commission.

While appreciating the serious questions involved in this objection, I am confident that both classes do not comprise a majority of the Protectionists found in the two houses, or, to speak more accurately, a majority of the Republican members.

The party is, in fact, on record in favor of such a commission. It has accomplished all that has been done in that behalf against Democratic

{$2.00 A YEAR.

SINGLE COPY, 5 CENTS.

opposition. It is responsible for the Tariff board authorized by the Tariff act of 1909. The editorial referred to errs in conveying the impression that the Tariff act of 1909 is the result of the Tariff board or commission organized by Presi dent Taft. This cannot be, for the reason that prior to the Tariff act of 1909 there was no Tariff board or commission-nor authority of law to appoint one. The board appointed by President Taft in pursuance of the law of 1909 demonstrated its efficiency in its investigation of the cost of production of raw wool in various countries of the world.

Its report, made long subsequent to the enactment of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff law, showed that the duty on wool provided for by a later bill was too low; that it did not equal the difference between the cost of production in the United States and in Argentine, for example, and that the veto of such bill by President Taft was, on that score, justifiable.

The efforts of Republicans in Congress to secure a Tariff commission are not limited to the act of 1909. As showing in part what has been since attempted, and as showing also the real attitude of the Democratic party upon the question, may be permitted to here give an excerpt from a speech made before the Hamilton Club of Chicago on April 9 last:

"But the distinguished Democratic Senator from the State of Illinois, in an interview on March 6, attempted a forecast of the political issues of 1916. Among other things he says: "We will revive the question of a Tariff commission or Tariff board with a view of avoiding the upheavals occasioned by the formation of new Tariff bills and new Tariff policies at each Congressional election. The creation of this board or commission will be the only prin cipal Tariff issue.'

"A Tariff commission is not a Democratic new idea. This is evident from the fact that the distinguished Senator refers to it as a revival. It is Republican in origin. Without referring to what had before been attempted and accomplished by a Republican Congress in securing a Tariff commission, there was ample opportunity for the Democratic party to have incorporated in the law of 1913 a provision for a permanent Tariff commission. On September 6 there was a roll call on the amendment to Section 4 of the bill offered by Senator Works, which provided for a Tariff commission. On that roll call every Republican Senator voted 'aye' and on that roll call every Democratic Senator voted 'no,' and the amendment was defeated by a vote of 37 to Again, on the same day there was a roll on the amendment offered by Senator Poindexter as a new section to the bill creating a Tariff commission. On this roll call every Republican Senator voted 'aye,' every Democratic Senator voting 'nay' and the amendment was defeated by a vote of 33 to 22.

32. call

"In neither case did a single Democratic Senator offer objection to the form or the contents of the amendments proposed by Senators Works and Poindexter, but manifested their opposition to a Tariff commission by voting 'no,'

"Whom does the Senator mean when he says 'We will revive the question of a Tariff commission'? And is the distinguished Senator with his party about to become Protectionist? Does not a Tariff commission in and of itself simply imply an examination into the cost of production at home and abroad with a view to such duties upon imported manufactures as will afford Protection to the home industry and the labor employed therein? There is small need for a Tariff commission otherwise.

"The Senator did not speak by the book' when he said the Democratic party would revive the question of a Tariff commission. For this not according to time-honored Democratic

is

creed. Here is one incident of the discussion. It was just before the roll call on Senator Works' amendment when the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, John Sharp Williams, one of the great leaders and exponents of the doctrines of the Democratic party, said:

""Mr. President, I wish to express briefly my opposition to a Tariff commission. I think, in short meter, it is simply Protection reduced to a science. Therefore, I do not see how Democrats can support it.'

"And every Democratic Senator seemed to be of like opinion. With this as the record, imagine the Herculean task before the distinguished Senator when not 'we' but he comes to revive the Tariff commission. In whom will the country put its trust for so important a work?"

I shall regret any indication of Republican opposition to the principle of a Tariff commission now. It will be neither timely nor in accord with the present temper of American voters, who are beginning to believe that there should be more of science and less of party politics in the adjustment of Tariff rates. The Republican party can with safety and consistently advocate such a commission. I agree with Senator Williams that it will be "Protection reduced to a science." But, being so, it will be Protection relieved of the charge that it is in any case undue or in favor of special interests without regard to the present or ultimate good of the public. Very truly yours,

THOMAS STERLING, U. S. S.

Representative Frank P. Woods, Tenth Iowa District.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S., WASHINGTON, D. C. Committee on Banking and Currency and Rural Credits.

ESTERVILLE, Ia., August 2, 1915. It seems to me that it is the duty of the chairman of the committee, such as the national Congressional committee, to endeavor to assist in carrying out the policy of the party as given in the national platform. Therefore, in answer to your letter I would call your attention to the last national platform of the Republican party, pages 184-5 enclosed booklet. As I understand

it this is the policy of the party until it is changed by a national convention. Very respectfully yours, FRANK P. WOODS, M. C.

Mr. Woods refers to the following paragraphs from the Republican platform of 1912:

THE TARIFF POLICY.

We reaffirm our belief in a Protective Tariff. The Republican Tariff policy has been of the greatest benefit to the country, developing our resources, diversifying our industries and Protecting our workingmen against competition with cheaper labor abroad, thus establishing for our wage earners the American standard of living. The Protective Tariff is so woven into the fabric of our industrial and agricultural life that to substitute for it a Tariff for revenue only would destroy many industries and throw millions of our people out of employment. The products of the farm and of the mine should receive the same measure of Protection as other products of American labor.

We hold that the import duties should be high enough, while yielding a sufficient revenue, to Protect adequately American industries and wages. Some of the existing import duties are too high, and should be reduced. Readjustment should be made from time to time to conform to changing conditions and to reduce excessive rates, but without injury to any American industry. To accomplish this correct information is indispensable. This information can best be obtained by an expert commission, as the large volume of useful facts contained in the recent reports of the Tariff board has demonstrated.

TARIFF BOARD INDORSED.

The pronounced feature of modern industrial life is its enormous diversification. To apply Tariff rates justly to these changing conditions requires closer study and more scientific methods than ever before. The Republican party has shown by its creation of a Tariff board its recognition of this situation and its determination to be equal to it. We condemn the Democratic party for its failure either to provide funds for the continuance of this board or to make some other provision for securing the information requisite for intelligent Tariff legislation. We protest against the Democratic method

of legislating on these vitally important subjects without careful investigation.

We condemn the Democratic Tariff bills passed by the House of Representatives of the Sixtysecond Congress as sectional, as injurious to the public credit and as destructive of business enterprise.

Representative Howard Sutherland, West Virginia.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S., WASHINGTON, D. C.

ELKINS, W. Va., July 31, 1915.

I am and always have been a strong believer in a Protective Tariff, and have no doubt that the next Congress and Presidency will be carried on the Protective issue.

I have not given the subject of a non-partisan Tariff commission the close attention which I should like to give it before expressing definitely and finally my views upon the subject. I shall expect to give this matter continued study until Congress assembles and thereafter.

At the present time I do not believe I would care to be quoted upon the subject. Very truly yours, HOWARD SUTHERLAND, M. C.

Representative Sydney Anderson, First Minnesota District.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

LANESBORO, Minn., July 30, 1915.

I beg to say that I am not in accord with the views expressed in the editorial referred to In my opinion, the failure of the Democrats in the last Congress, and the dissatisfaction which now unquestionably exists with respect to much of the legislation of that Congress, is due more to the failure of the Democrats to obtain the scientifically accurate information which is so necessary to adequate legislation in a country so large as ours, in which industry is so tremendously and so wondrously diversified. If the Republicans are to be more successful than the Democrats have been in dealing with the many momentous questions which will be presented in the future, they must give greater attention to the ascertainment of fact, and this is particularly true of the Tariff question, because the making of a Tariff requires the ascertainment, compilation and classification of a vast number and variety of facts respecting the industries of the country and the methods and conditions under which they are conducted. I do not regard the efforts of the so-called Taft Tariff commission as fruitless; on the contrary, I believe the facts gathered by this commission on the wool and cotton schedules was of tremendous value, and it is my judgment that the destruction of this commission by the present administration was a very great mistake.

If we are not to have again such a vote of disapproval as greeted the Tariff act of 1909, the next Tariff law enacted by the Republican party must be based upon facts, and those facts ascertained in such a way and under such conditions and by such machinery as will properly create in the public mind a favorable opinion as to their accuracy as a basis for Tariff legislation.

If my recollection serves me correctly, it is not long since the National Chamber of Commerce took a vote upon this question, and the vote showed that the business men of this country are overwhelmingly in favor of a Tariff commission as an instrument for obtaining the facts upon which further Tariff enactments shall be based.

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee I had an opportunity to examine with some care and in detail the recent Tariff act in its first stages. In this work, particularly with reference to the woolen schedule, the data gathered by the Tariff board was invaluable.

The creation of a Tariff commission cannot be considered in any sense as an abandonment of the principle of Protection, for it is not contended by anyone that the commission shall fix rates, but, on the contrary, it is regarded by those in favor of it as the most efficient, effective and impartial instrument for gathering the information from which the rates of duties shall be determined. I should certainly regard any action on the part of the Republican party, reversing the position which it has several times taken in Congress in favor of a Tariff commission, as a distinct step backward, and the action of Congress upon this matter, in the last session in particular, conclusively disproves the

statement contained in the editorial that the leading Protectionists in Congress have declared themselves opposed to a Tariff commission. Yours very truly,

SYDNEY ANDERSON, M. C.

Representative H. Steenerson, Ninth Minnesota District.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S., WASHINGTON, D. C.

CROOKSTON, Minn., July 30, 1915. I entirely disagree with you on the subject of a Tariff commission. The last Taritt commission proved that work of that kind is a great aid to honest and fair Tariff revision. The Democrats made the mistake of their lives in repudiating the idea of a commission. If the Republicans when they come next into power make the same mistake their Tariff work will be as short-lived as we hope the Democratic work will be. There is nothing in the point that it is an infringment of the rights of Congress.

The Interstate Commerce Commission, Trade Commission and similar bodies are in part cre ated to aid in framing intelligent and effective legislation on technical subjects.

I hope your organization will not pursue the unwise course of opposing such a measure, for if they do there will be a split in the Republican party sufficiently serious to destroy chances of successful Tariff legislation.

There will be plenty of chance for Protection under the commission system. Very truly yours, H. STEENERSON, M. C.

Representative Nicholas Longworth, First Ohio
District.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

July 30, 1915. With so much of the editorial as argues the necessity for a return to the policy of Protection I am in hearty accord, but with the proposition suggested, that a Tariff commission is not in accord with the Protective system, I entirely disagree.

On the contrary, I believe that a properly constituted Tariff commission will go far to justify and to uphold the Protective system.

The Tariff Commission bill which I introduced, in a slightly modified form, received the votes of practically every Republican in the House and Senate, and was only beaten during the closing hours of the session by a determined Democratic filibuster.

Under these circumstances the statement in the editorial that the leading Protectionists in Congress have declared themselves opposed to a Tariff commission would scarcely seem to be justified by the facts.

Further along in the editorial reference is made to the "fruitless results" of the labors of the Tariff commission or board which President Taft organized in 1909, as illustrated by the Tariff act of 1909. The fact is overlooked that the legislation authorizing the appointment of that board was provided in the act itself and therefore could have had no effect upon the Tariff