Imágenes de páginas



[ocr errors]

the renewal of the Hull trade treaties, many of which expire this year. That would be a grave mistake. It would indicate, as Mr. Willkie points out, that the Republican party lacks 'an enlarged vision of the world's economic problems

"If we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that no nation can expect to sell its own surplus to other nations if it is not willing, in turn, to purchase the surplus of the nations to which it sells. The prosperity of the United States in the post-war world will depend to a great degree upon the prosperity of the rest of the world. Freedom to trade, as Mr. Willkie well says, is a two-way proposition. It would be most unfortunate if Republican Members of Congress did not recognize the truth of that principle." Arkansas Democrat, Little Rock, Ark., February 14, 1943.

* * * "The authority, first granted in 1934, and renewed in 1937 and 1940, now must be granted again for another 3 years if Secretary of State Hull is to continue spinning the world-wide commercial web which he began in the hope that it would keep the world at peace.

“At present the pacts cover some 60 percent of America's normal foreign trade.

"Here's how reciprocal trade agreements are set up:

“United States representatives approach those of the other country and tell them, in effect : 'Look, we'll reduce a few tariffs—and you reduce a few. That way, our people can get your goods cheaper and yours can get our goods cheaper.'

"So they wade through heaps of import and export figures and come out with a list of tariff cuts. In the case of the treaties with Canada and the United Kingdom there were hundreds of individual items.

"Then-and this is a most important part of the Hull plan—the United States representatives insist on this provision: That both countries share the privilege of the reduced ta riffs with any other country not discriminating commercially against them. This is called the ‘most-favored-nation' policy.

* “The Nazis insisted on 'bilateral agreements under which commerce between the two countries would balance. This was their famous barter system, under which Czechoslovakia got aspirin tablets in return for machine guns.

**Opposition to the pacts since 1934 has not stuck particularly to party lines, but rather has reflected sectional and industrial interests.

"To all critics Secretary Hull's steadfast reply has been that cutthroat commercial competition leads to economic feuds--eventually to war." Cincinnati Enquirer, January 26, 1943.

"A WELCOME CHANGE "As long as it was able to place its view on record merely as that of a minority not burdened with the responsibilities of government, the Republican delegation in Congress opposed the continuation of the reciprocal trade program by which the American Government sought, before the development of World War II, to find a workable arrangement of world trade.

"The elevation last November of the Republican congressional delegation to a basis of virtual equality, especially in the House of Representatives, boded ill for the reenactment this spring of the authority for the reciprocal trade program. But there seemingly has been a change of mind, if not of heart, on the part of Republican congressional leaders. It is now reported that opposition to the continnation of the reciprocal trade program will not be made a matter of party policy when the issue comes up for a vote several months hence.

“This is a most welcome development, and if it can be called inconsistency, it is certainly inconsistency in a good cause. Two things might have dictated the new attitude: (1) A belief that it would be politically inexpedient to have the party take the responsibility for killing the reciprocal trade program at this stage of developments, and, (2) a conviction that it would be unwise in a much more far-reaching sense for the trade program to be abandoned now. We hope that the latter was the deciding consideration.

“The reciprocal-trade program is not perfect. When world conditions permit a more nearly perfect arrangement for international trade it may be discarded. But it was a great, almost an infinite improvement over the prohibitive tariff system which preceded it-and which had so much to do with the derangement

[ocr errors]



of this Nation's economy in the late 1920's and the general stagnation of world trade which contributed to the spawning of dictatorships throughout the globe.

“For this Nation to abandon its reciprocal trade-treaty system this spring would confirm the worst fears of the rest of the world that the United States intended after the war to go back to the economic nationalism which proved so injurious before. This might have a deleterious effect upon the fighting comradeship of the United Nations. And almost certainly it would gravely aggravate the problems of the peace to come.” Washington Post (Virginia Prewett), January 30, 1943.

“TRADE AGREEMENTS—THEIR DOUBLE WORTH “No issue that will come before the present Congress will be watched with closer interest by Latin-American observers here than action on the Executive authority to negotiate trade agreements, which will come up for renewal at this session. Fifteen of the twenty other New World republics have signed agreements with us and the attention of their representatives here has already been sharply attracted by a flurry of statements made by Members of the new Congress, hinting that a strong opposition to this policy may arise. A survey of opinion on Capitol Hill this week indicates to this writer that the current of sentiment to make the trade-agreements program a political football is subsiding, however, as the move to take lease-lend through the political hoops subsided.

In the last year before war in Europe began to affect the picture, we had agreements with 10 of the 20 New World republics. In spite of heavy German competition, we had climbed back to the position of supplier of 60.9 percent of imports to the northern tier of countries and 28.7 percent to South America.

“This was almost as good a position as we had held during the boom years when loans and new capital investment were flowing southward to stimulate purchases from us.

"A byproduct of the trade-agreements program that cannot possibly be estimated in money values is improved political relations. There has been a great change in inter-American relations since 1933, when the United States was warned that the Montevideo conference and, in fact, the inter-American conference system itself might collapse. Today this system has been fortified and extended and all the Latin-American republics except one are cooperating fully with us in meeting the threats of war. Improved trade relations and stabilized economic understandings brought about through the Hull reciprocal trade agreements have played a vital role in building this hemisphere front. The United States will need friends in this hemisphere to make the peace as we need them now for war, and it is only through the continuance of sound and mutually beneficial economic relations that this solidarity for the peace can be assured.” Times-Pica yune, New Orleans, La., January 24, 1943.

"If the Republicans intend to make the reciprocal trade-treaty program a party football, their choice may not be a happy one. They can hardly refuse to permit renewal of the President's authority to make the treaties without waging a fight that will antagonize some of our war allies and expose themselves to the charge of impairing our relations abroad.

“High tariff protectionist groups would be glad to see the reciprocal trade program killed. Some isolationists would give their help to beat it. But if the Republican leaders decide to oppose the bill they will have to make a real fight to have a chance of success. That would involve stepping on the toes of our foreign friends, at least by implication, and would raise questions about the will of the United States to cooperate in maintaining peace and order in the world after the war is won. Especially would that sort of a fight affect our relations in South America, where our sales have so far exceeded our purchases in recent years as to create grave exchange problems from time to time. The defeat of Mr. Hull's progr m would tend to negate everything that his speeches have led other nations to hope for in the way of American cooperation to maintain economic stability and to make materials available to all nations which need them. Daily Times-Herald, Dallas, Ter., January 26, 1943.

It will be fortunate for the country if the reciprocal tariff plan is considered by the lawmakers strictly on its merits and without regard to the fact that it was launched under the Roosevelt administration.



"As a matter of fact, the reciprocal tariff policy was not a phase of the New Deal proper. It has been the specialty of Secretary Hull, who has never been ranked among the New Dealers.

"But the agreements have lowered the tariff on some commodities and have prevented an increase of the duty on others. For this reason the program has opposition in high tariff circles.

“The program for which Secretary Hull has labored so diligently may not be perfect, but it has obvious merit. After the war it will be essential for the United States to do its part toward revival of world commerce. We cannot hide behind a high tariff wall and meet our share of responsibility for helping to lay a foundation for secure peace. For that reason let us hope that Congress, in studying the tariff problem, will not think in terms of politics and partisan prejudice.” Bulletin, Philadelphia, Pa., January 11, 1943.

"Good members of the Republican Party who are as much for a decent world order as anyone else, are going to be invited to scuttle this preliminary gesture (lend-lease program) and intent on the pretense that thereby they are discomforting Roosevelt or upholding a free legislature.

"They will then be invited to refuse to renew the Hull reciprocal-trade treaties on the ground that tariffs should be determined in detail (and raised) by the people's 'independent' legislature.

"If they fall for these maneuvers, they might just as well, once and for all, pro claim the Republican Party as having repudiated the Atlantic Charter, line up solidly behind the isolationist doctrine, and come out into the open as opposed to any cooperation of any sort." American Banker, New York, January 8, 1943.

“We must help the nations of the world to restore the trade of the world and use our brains and devise a way for a better and more prosperous world," W. Linn Hemingway, president of the American Banker's Association, told members of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York in their first meeting of the year here yesterday. * "We cannot be prosperous in a world either spiritually or financially bankrupt. The events of the last few years have proven that. Therefore, if we are to have prosperity in this country we must see that the wheels of industry are started up all over the world. I do not think that free trade is necessary for that, nor do I advocate the abolition of tariffsa continuation of Mr. Hull's method of trade agreements should enable trade to thrive again." News, Dayton, Ohio, January 2, 1943.

“A fair exchange of products among the nations, arranged by fair and open agreements, is essential to the peace of the world. Most children know that now, but not, it seems, a good many of our politicians.

So here emerges that bloc of most ursavory ancient memory, the tariff bloc. With its higher tarifs levied in the 1920's, these had great influence in bringing on the economic collapse of 1929. Our own and the tariffs of Europe helped greatly to bring on this war. Now the tariff bloc, having learned nothing, is to rally again against the Nation's prosperity and the world's peace." Sun, Baltimore, Md., January 4, 1943.

"When the present war is ended, we shall again face the question of political isolation or political cooperation; but the question of economic isolation will come up, at least in a preliminary way,

in connection with the renewal of the Trade Agreements Act, for which the administration is expected to ask. "The Trade Agreements Act

represented an effort on the part of the Roosevelt administration to repair the errors of the Fordney-McCumber and Hawley-Smoot tariffs which largely stitled our foreign trade. Under this statute Secretary Hull has negotiated a series of important reciprocal trade parts which, prior to the war, had played a notable part in the revival of our overseas business.

"We shall have need for instrumentalities of this kind in the post-war world, for when hostilities cease and the work of reconstruction begins it will be necessary to provide for the fullest possible exchange of goods and services between the nations. The various lend-lease agreements look to this revival of foreign trade and bind their signatories to work for it by all possible means.

“The exchange of goods and services will be impeded, however, if tariffs are again jacked up in this and other countries as they were in 1919. To guard against such an unfortunate development we must not only maintain the trade agreements already in force with the British, the Canadians, and with other


[ocr errors]

countries but we must be prepared also to negotiate new agreements with countries which had not yet been brought into the system when the war began. The first step toward such preparation will be the renewal of the Trade Agreements Act.

"The attitude of Congress toward this proposal will be one of the important tests of congressional opinion about the post-war world." News, Washington, D. C. (Raymond Clapper), January 7, 1943.

"Will the Republicans recognize that circumstances have changed and that the situation now makes it urgently to the American interest not to repudiate the reciprocal trade-agreements program? Will the Republicans be willing to sacrifice a political issue out of which they can certainly demagog a quantity of votes, in order not to do grave damage to the prestige and world influence of the United States in world affairs at this time?

“Nothing effective will be done if we scuttle the reciprocal trade program at this session of Congress. It can be scuttled by restrictive amendments just as effectively as by an outright refusal to extend its life-and some of its enemies will try to get at it in that critical, indirect way.

His (Cordell Hull's) reciprocal trade program has been one of the few beacons in a bleak decade. To repudiate the program now would undermine every effort to make this victory stick." Dallas News, January 23, 1943.

“The act under which Secretary of State Hull has effected reciprocal trade pacts with 25 countries expires June 12, and there are indications that a fight will be made in Congress against its renewal. While it is probable that its supporters will have sufficient strength to renew the act in some form, there is possibility that serious limitations may be written into it. The reason for opposition most usually voiced is that the act delegates to the State Department too much of senatorial check on treaty making. Less vocal, but no less numerous probably, are those who really oppose extension of the act because of adherence to the old high tariff principle.

“Looking back over the last decade that has witnessed, first the gathering of the storm of international discord, and then the bursting of its fury upon the world, we discern one program above all others that has been basically soundthe Hull effort toward free world trade. It was not sufficient to avert disaster; the doctrine of aggression by might, culminating in demagoguery and gangsterism, had gained too much omentum. Yet the reciprocal trade program accomplished much good by aiding in the consolidation of democratic nations against their enemies. Especially did it pave the way for our good-neighbor policy in Latin America. Today the reciprocal trade program still points the way toward the 'winning of the peace' to follow the war.

“Insofar as distrust of the United States has existed in other countries, it has been dụe primarily to our high tariff policy. By good diplomacy, many protestations of our sincerity, and a good deal of spending of American taxpayers' money abroad, we have largely dissipated the suspicions of our allies and of the few remaining neutrals. But it will not be difficult to rearouse their fear and distrust. And we can most quickly accomplish this disastrous effect by giving the world reasons to believe that we will return to our selfish, isolationist, high-tarife policy when the war is over.

"Hence, while there may be some legitimate reasons for objection to renewal of the Trade Agreements Act, they are far outweighed by sound arguments for it. The act should be renewed-and without undue wrangling which in itself would create distrust abroad." Wall Street Journal, Pacific Coast Edition, January 21, 1943.

"Like an epilogue to the tariff debate comes the reciprocal trade agreement with Mexico. In form it follows closely the similar agreements which Secretary Hull has made with 24 other nations, of which 14 are of the Western Hemisphere. Its specific provisions appear to have been more or less influenced by war conditions.

"Mr. Hull has negotiated an agreement with Mexico which promises to serve the anti-Axis purpose of the two nations. How it will be regarded by the citizens of either in peacetimes remains to be seen. In any case the intent of its framers to prepare for a mutually beneficial greater interchange of goods in the commerce of ordinary times is something gained.”

[ocr errors]

Export Trade and Shipper, New York, January 11, 1943.

"As for trade agreements, the difficulty here appears to be whether they should be conceived and signed by Secretary of State Hull, the father of the program, or be subjected to prolonged and frequently interminable debate in the Senate. To us, there can be no question that the Department of State is the best equipped to handle these negotiations." Times-Dispatch, Richmond, Va., January 13, 1943.

"There is every reason to believe that the general level of living in many countries of the world can be raised after the war, by means of an intelligent program of international collaboration and freer trade. The approach of President Roosevelt and Vice President Wallace to the problems of the post-war world impresses us as the right one, insofar as it places emphasis on the lowering of trade barriers, the establishment of an international organization to enforce peace, and the development of backward areas with the aid of America's wealth and productive capacity." Chronicle, San Francisco, Calif., January 15, 1943 (Chester Rowell).

"The trade agreement question will be more difficult (than the lend-lease question) but it is at least equally important. For it involves in principle nothing less than the test whether America will commit itself now against any possible establishment of economic peace in the world when the military peace is made.

"We are all agreed that, if we are not to have a third world war within the lifetime of those who fight in this one, there must be an enforced military peace, under international control. Most of us are beginning to be willing to delegate enough of our sovereignty' to that international organization to make military peace enforceable. But fewer of us have yet realized that if there is economic warfare no military peace can be lasting.

"And economic peace means, not of course 'free trade in the theoretical sense, but a very great liberalization of economic barriers, whether by embargoes, quotas, or tariffs intended to be prohibitive. If the American Congress now votes that even the limited system of reciprocal trade agreements that we now have shall no longer be American policy, the other countries will take it as notice to them that we will not cooperate in any system after the war under which the revival of trade between nations will be encouraged. They will begin planning to look out for themselves, after the war, by economic isolationism or 'autarchy,' as they did after the last war. And that finally ruined them all and was the major cause of bringing on this war.

“Grasping this elementary lesson of history and economics goes counter to too much Republican tradition to be easy for those raised in that tradition. It is a pity that the need for unthinking must come so soon that the campaign of education must be short. But so it is. And the test comes first on Republican Congressmen with the next 6 months." Journal of Commerce, New York, January 15, 1943.

"The forthcoming congressional debate over the extension of the law authorizing reciprocal trade agreements will largely determine the commercial policy which the United States will sponsor at post-war peace and economic conferences.

“While it could not be expected, in the unsettled era that preceded the present World War, that trade barriers could really be lowered effectively, American reciprocity did help to bring down tariffs to a limited extent and, more important, offered hope to the world at large that the constant raising of new barriers to international trade would be checked.

"The high tariff policy pursued by the United States following the first World War contributed to world economic difficulties. The extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act would demonstrate that Congress does not want to do the same thing again following the present conflict." Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky., December 16, 1942.

"The time has come when we can no longer afford to jeopardize international understanding, necessarily based upon sound trade policies, because special interests demand inordinate tariff protection for their products.

The greed of special interests which have become accustomed to preferential treatment does not recognize the necessities of war or of any. thing else.

« AnteriorContinuar »