Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

Nations. He submits his masterly argument just a week before the scheduled hearing on this important question before the House Ways and Means Committee.

"The issues involved in continuing or abandoning the Reciprocal Trade Agree Inents Act have to do with relationships which either draw men and nations together or else push them apart. Reciprocity implies bargaining, sharing, cooperating, recognizing another's interests and rights, and adjusting differences for a mutual advantage. Absence of reciprocity means the reverse of these attitudes and makes for misunderstanding and conflict.

They (trade agreements) increased our exports and, naturally, our imports as well.

Our increased imports were mainly commodities which we did not produce, or else produced in insufficient volume to supply our wants. American industry and agriculture were carefully safeguarded against ruinous or unfair foreign competition and, at the same time, were greatly benefited by larger and freer foreign markets for their surpluses. Thus it is that reciprocity builds employment, pay rolls, buying power, and good business at home, plus good will abroad.

"The alternative to this liberal policy would be a falling-back to the old barriers and reprisals of a miscalled 'protective' tariff, the discredited system which haunted us through the 1920's and which did much to bring on the depression of the early 1930's. International trade is no one-way process; it must work both ways and be mutually profitable if it is to live and grow. Only the economic isolationists contend that our country could or should be entirely self-contained and detached from the rest of the world.

The United Nations have declared their desire 'to bring about the fullest collaboration among all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic adjustment and social security.' That is reciprocity in the broad and creative sense. For Congress now to repudiate the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act would be tantamount to serving notice on our allies and on the rest of the world that America would not cooperate in building a secure, a just, and a generous international order. Such a retreat from our principles and our practical interests would grarely hamper our war effort and would lose us the better part of the peace.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 6, 1943.

Yet it is significant that Congress twice renewed this act, and that, to date, no less than 30 tariff agreements have been negotiated in accord with its provisions.

"This fact-and the news that three more treaties are even now being negotiated-is the real measure of their importance. It means that all these nations saw in the them a means to more harmonious economic relations. This is a fact of the highest importance just when we are fighting a war that is to guarantee to all nations a more equal access to the raw materials and the markets of the world.

"Further, these treaties, according to Mr. Hull, will be necessary after the war to open up foreign markets to American goods, to maintain full employment during a difficult transition period, and to 'enable the United States to occupy the position of leadership now in laying the groundwork for post-war, worldwide economic reconstruction.'

"That makes it clear enough that there is nothing one-sided about this system. Far from putting us only in the position of making concessions to others, it also means some very substantial advantages for us.

"The authority for the negotiation of reciprocal trade treaties will expire once more on June 12. The House Ways and Means Committee will take up the question of its renewal next week. If common sense prevails, there ought to be little debate about continuing a policy that is advantageous to us and that is among the nations of the world a pledge of our good faith." Cleveland Press (By John W. Love), April 5, 1943.

“This is the part of the country which might well take the leadership in the effort to renew the Trade Agreements Act. The great manufacturing region between the mountains and the river, this home of the metal-working industries, probably has the most to gain and the least to lose in going forward with the policy of the reciprocal trade agreements.

They do not provide for free trade, but they did make possible freer trade, and in the post-war world the removal of restrictions on trade would sooner restore security and peace than any quantity of schemes for international government, however elaborate. Indeed, some of the proposals for

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

[ocr errors]

world states look like plans partially to accomplish the same thing without arousing the feelings of those who think security still lies in restricting the exchange of goods.

“This region has several of its own reasons for urging Congress at least to renew the trade-agreements policy of the last 9 years,

"We have the largest number of those trades in which America indisputably leads the world. We have the automobile industry, which long ago relinquished any claim for consideration in tariffs. We have the bulk of the efficient steel, electrical, railroad equipment, machinery, domestic-appliance and farm-implement industries which have long competed in foreign markets, no matter what the disparity between American prices and foreign.

* * After the first emergency relief is distributed at the close of the war, the greatest need will be for the tools of production. Everybody admits these will be provided in some manner, but whether the necessary loans are to be short or long or eventually to be written off will depend on what we are willing to take in payment.

“Unless we will accept materials and goods, then the bulk of our share in world reconstruction is likely to go the way of most of the lend-lease transfers seem destined to go. Its cost will be spread on the country in the manner of our ill-fated loans prior to 1930.

"All those businessmen who have good reason for being suspicions of plans for puttting the Government into 'partnership’ with industry are likely to find their greatest hope for restoring the freedom of enterprise lies in lowering the barriers to trade Birmingham News, April 7, 1943.

Each time the question of extending the reciprocal trade program has come up beretofore there has been a congressional fight over it. High tariff die-hards have opposed its extension each time. Now they are out to fight it again.

"Now of all times it is imperative to have such a program. If the United States abandoned this enlightened policy for promoting world trade, other countries might wonder if we really subscribed to the principles of the Atlantic Charter relating to trade."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

*

*

"CHICAGO TRADE GROUP SUPPORTS RECIPROCAL TARIFF EXTENSION

[ocr errors]

Chicago Journal of Commerce, March 9, 1943.

"Enactment by Congress of legislation for renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act was urged yesterday by Holman D. Pettibone, president of the Chicago Association of Commerce. The act is now subject to expire June 12. Mr. Pettibone's statement, on behalf of the association, followed unanimous approval of the proposed extension by its board of directors.

“The association first adopted a position favoring reciprocity in foreign trade early in 1932, and worked continuously for favorable congressional action until the first act became law, June 12, 1934. In 1937, and again in 1940, when considerable opposition developed to extension of the act, the trade body adhered to its previously declared principle, which it has once more reaffirmed. Christian Science Monitor (by George Ericson, financial editor), February 27, 1943.

"ECONOMICS AND COMMON SENSE URGE HUIL TRADE PACT RENEWAL

The reciprocal trade pacts have proved their worth. They were inaugurated under Cordell Hull's sponsorship and have been a potent factor in cementing the friendship of hitherto coldly suspicious nations. The Trade Pact Act is a recognition that commerce is not only vital to the sound prosperity of the signatory nations, but is a bulwark of peace.

"It cannot be gainsaid that tariffs are an economic weapon. In a world of intense economic rivairy, weapons are regarded as necessary, but they lend themselves all too readily to nationalistic and discriminatory policies. If foreign trade is necessary to progress and progressively higher living standards, then the fewer the impediments to trade the better.

"America early in its history started in to build tariff walls. The thecry of 'protection to infant industries' was carried to the extreme, so that it amounted to wholesale subsidizing by consumers of inefficient concerns. The tariff proponents pointed to the excess of exports as indubitable proof of the success of

86405-43-67

*

*

their policies, never suspecting that repudiation of debts became inevitable with a continuation of such one-way trade.

"It remains to be seen whether the United States will again make big loans to the nationals of other countries and then build walls to keep their products out. This would be a sure way not only to lose the loans, but to creat enmity. When one country uses tariffs widely to creat import barriers, under the mistaken notion that it is good business policy, others follow suit and the race toward complete isolation is on.

The opposition to the reciprocal trade pacts come from () those who fear foreign competition and (b) those who would have Congress take back some of the powers delegated to the President. Neither of the above reasons is valid enough to justify the junking of the Trade Pact of 1934, which made a sound contribution towards freer world trade by arranging for reductions in restrictive tariffs. In these agreements with 25 other countries the rights of the United States are fully protected. There is no foundation for any assumption that the industries of the country have suffered from the paet.

As to the second objection, it is clear that Congress has been unable in the past to act effectively on trade agreements, because of pressure groups and highsalaried lobbies. Taking away the right of the State Department to guide American trade policy will add no luster to the two Houses and may undo much of the good already accomplished. Let Congress abrogate the right of the Executive to promulgate law by directive, but let the reciprocal-trade treaties stand.

“The economic agreement of February 24, 1942, between United States and Great Britain is entirely consonant with the Hull pact; in effect an extension of the latter. By it the world is notified that the nations aim to promote mutually advantageous economic relations and to eliminate all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce and to effect the reduction of tariff's and other barriers. Not only that, but the document provides that the agreed action is open to participation by all other countries of like mind.

"The United States should make up its mind therefore to explore every arenue by which it can accept goods and services from other nations and at the same time maintain a full level of domestic employment. For even the tyro now realizes that selling and buying must balance approximately, and currencies must be stabilized.

“Potent among the agencies calling for a further extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act are the National Foreign Trade Council and the International Chamber of Commerce. Even the president of the National Association of Manufacturers said this month that 'we must not bar other nations from our own market. If we're going to fight as a world nation, we must trade like one as well.' Here is a situation where the short-range and long-range goals are steadily being reconciled. The reciprocal pact is a powerful voice for peace in a war-torn world.

"Folks who deal amicably with each other are more interested in the mutually profitable exchange of goods than in gaining political advantage. The open door that swings both ways is the true symbol of international cooperation.” Cleveland Press (by John W. Love), March 8, 1943.

“Deserving a better display than it got in the press last Friday was John Beach's interview with James F. Lincoln on the subject of international trade following the war. Mr. Lincoln, who is head of Lincoln Electric and president of the (leve. land Chamber of Commerce, called for freer trade as the means of improving the efficiency of American business and raising the American standard of living.

“A world market,' Mr. Lincoln said, 'would enable the United States greatly to increase employment and production in those things we do best.' Such a market would, he went on, lower the cost of the goods we make for ourselves and lift the purchasing power of those to whom we sell.

"It is encouraging that more and more manufacturers are thinking of the reduction of tariffs as the best means of rebuilding purchasing power the world over. They follow the example of the automobile industry, which, a decade ago, renounced tariff benefits. In his own business Mr. Lincoln is in that group which needs to ask no favors of Government in order to pay the highest wages at home and compete in countries with the lowest standards.

“These groups of manufacturers, in Ohio, in Michigan, and in a number of other States, could well provide the leadership in a movement which holds out the promise of a swifter world recovery than any amount of effort to set up a world government, however useful such a government might become in the years to follow the war.

Bridgeport Post, March 9, 1943.

HERMAN BROCK SPEAKS IN BRIDGEPORT

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

“That was an interesting forecast which Herman G. Brock, vice president of the Guarantee Trust Co., made concerning the future of South America when he spoke in Bridgeport the other day.

"Among other predictions, was the following: 'Reciprocal trade agreements will most certainly be extensively used between our country and the various South American states to the benefit of both. We need a great many of the raw materials to be found so richly in South America and the South Americans need our technological knowledge. Here is the kind of exchange which benefits both parties to the trade and impoverishes neither.'" Raleigh News and Observer, February 27, 1943.

“Those Republicans-alas, some privilege-loving Democrats, too—who wish to take from the President the power to continue for the duration the Hull trade agreements, are showing lack of both vision and statesmanship. They would erect an old-time Chinese wall around the United States at the time when no nation can live into itself.

With what result? Wilson predicted that unless we entered the League of Nations within 25 years this country would be engulfed in a more terrible war than had ever been known. History has proved him a true prophet.

"The opponents of continuing the trade agreements, which have helped the flow of trade, and have contributed toward pan-American solidarity, are inviting a return to selfish and ruinous isolation. They are the forerunners of international hate which is the foe of world peace. They have eyes in the back of their heads and have learned nothing from the history of the last quarter of a century.

"Having eyes, they see not." New York Forwarder, March 8, 1943.

Foreign traders need not be reminded that the success or failure of American overseas commerce in the post-war era will probably hinge upon the action taken in June on reciprocal trade. But there are evidently still a number of isolationist Congressmen who believe the United States should hide behind tariff walls in the future. They haven't yet learned that tariffs helped aplenty to start World War II. Traders, in their own interest, had better unite now to see that enlightened trade practices prevail after the war. Two courses of action are open to them. They can write their Congressmen now. And they can follow through at the polls when isolationists come up for reelection." Washington Star (Dorothy Thompson), March 5, 1943.

But should they (the trade agreements) be turned down, the rest of the world would take it as a symptom of an American return to intense protectionism and isolationism after the war, and the effect would be serious.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 27, 1943.

"A near new low for all time in specious tariff discussion was made recently in the address of Elvin H. Killheffer, chairman of the executive committee of the American Tariff League, at the annual meeting of that organization.

"Taking cognizance of the growing demand for a liberal trade and tariff policy at the end of the war, the speaker told what was doubtless an appreciative audience a number of things about the tariff that should not pass unchallenged. It is particularly important that we begin to educate our public as to the facts of our tariff policy as a part of the planning that must be done for the postwar

*

era.

"This column has assumed there would be no difficulty in the matter of extending the Hull reciprocal trade treaties, but with the tariff league displaying animosity toward them and, in effect, advocating more extreme tariffs than we have ever imposed, there can be no certainty even as to them.

"Certainly we should involve ourselves in a terrible mess if in the midst of a war designed to promote the exchange of goods and services and to open economic opportunities to all peoples we allowed the trade treaty act to run out.

*

“Irrespective of that, the signs are multiplying that important groups are still unregenerate on the tariff, which is to say that winning a sound peace may prove quite as difficult as it was at the end of the other war." Cincinnati Enquirer (J. F. Cronin), February 28, 1943.

"If the Government is not given renewal of reciprocal trade agreement powers which it is asking of Congress 'the United States might just as well begin now to prepare for the next war.' This opinion is expressed by J. B. Condliffe, professor of economics, University of California, in an article in the current issue of Think magazine. He called the reciprocal trade agreements the 'tried and tested' technique for opening of trade. San Antonio Express, February 20, 1943.

"First real test as to the permanency of this Nation's transition from a foreign policy hinged upon dangerously shortsighted isolationism to one accepting world responsibility and cooperation commensurate with its international interests, will come with the congressional vote on renewing the Reciprocal Trade Agræments Act before its expiration date (June 12 next). "That act affords machinery for wartime economic cooperation and for effect.

the Atlantic Charter and post-war provisions of the lend-lease agreements. As Lindsay Crawford, National Foreign Trade Council secretary, points out, it substitutes bilateral tariff bargaining based on equality of treatment, for unilateral action that leads only to excessive trade barriers, throttled commerce, and lower living standards within the competing nations.

“Secretary of State Hull, who has fought tirelessly for the reciprocal-trade principle, is no visionary, but an experienced, discerning realist.

Failure to renew the act-without detrimental amendments-would erase a decade's constructive labors and drain America's reservoir of goodwill which, Wendell L. Willkie asserts, already has sprung some dangerous leaks.

"This issue is too fundamental to the United States' future welfare to allow of partisan controversy. Judged on its merits solely, the Reciprocal Trade Agree ments Act must be renewed.

“As a developing industrial State--almost incredibly rich in natural resources and with surplus agricultural production-Texas' future largely depends on foreign-trade expansion. The Reciprocal Trade Act's renewal thus should receive State-wide support. To that end, a resolution by the legislature at Austin and a popular appeal to the Texas delegation in Congress are in order." Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 25, 1943.

$

*

"TOBACCO MEN ASKED TO BACK TRADE PACTS

"John Wesley Hanes, of New York, in an address before the forty-third annual midyear meeting of the board of governors of the Tobacco Association of the United States, held yesterday, said:

“ 'Secretary of State Cordell Hull is endeavoring to institute a trade-agree ments program in an effort to reduce trade barriers and to let private traders operate; to let more goods move; let more people make a living, with the ultimate hope that peace and prosperity will return to the world. He urged the directors of the tobacco association to give their support to the Hull trade agree ments program when the measures are brought up in Congress this spring. New York Herald Tribune, February 28, 1943.

"Speaking yesterday at a meeting of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, held in the Hotel Commodore, J. B. Condliffe, professor of economics of the University of California, declared that the whole world will watch the debate in Congress on the renewal of the President's powers to negotiate trade agreements, and said that the outcome of that debate will be accepted as decisive evidence of the intentions of the United States.

'If Congress should refuse the administration renewal of these executive powers which every other government possesses,' Professor Condliffe declared, "there will be little faith in other countries that the United States will in fact participate effectively in planning a world of expanding prosperity.'”

« AnteriorContinuar »