Sometimes it so happens that competition between home producers operates in time to eliminate in whole or in part the advantages which an industry may have once derived from a tariff duty. The duty ceasing to be a means for the taxing of the public for the protection of the industry, no longer serves any useful end on the statute books, and becomes a temptation for the elimination of competition between the home producers, so that they may again. make it an active agency for taxing the public. Frequent charges are made that various duties have thus become "trust" protectors instead of "infant" industry protectors, all of which goes to show that there are various sorts of abuses which may grow up under a protective tariff which is not amended from time to time. It being a practical certainty that many duties can be lowered without ruinous invasion of the home market by the foreigners, it may at once be concluded that tariff reduction is the just policy to pursue. But there is another and very important phase to the situation which is entitled to careful consideration, and which suggests. the advisability of adopting a plan whereby we may secure the reduction of foreign tariffs while reducing our own. Quite a number of our industries have reached a point of development where they are capable of a greater production than the home market demands, and the number of such industries will increase in the future. These industries should have a foreign outlet for their surplus production, and it is just as important, if not more so, that their natural growth be not checked as it is that new industries be assisted to a self-sustaining basis. Tariffs are now largely a matter of international agreement, and to secure reductions in duties of foreign tariffs on goods we can export, we should be in a position to offer in return concessions in our own tariff. Hence the force of adopting both a maximum tariff and a minimum tariff, with sufficient margin between them to allow for the making of reciprocity treaties. The value of a permanent tariff commission to assist in the execution of this plan for international agreements. ought to appeal forcibly to the country. In tariff negotiations with other countries we must make up our minds that it will be necessary to offer genuine concessions, and therefore it is essential that the minimum tariff be made as low as possible consistent with the absolute requirements of the protective principle. The present tariff could well serve as the maxi mum tariff. Possibly some of the duties could on reasonable grounds be raised for this purpose, but any attempt to make the present schedule practically the minimum schedule would make the new legislation nothing but a farce. The free list should be considerably enlarged in the minimum tariff, particularly as relating to raw materials—it is well to remember that one of the ways to build up home industries is not to tax the raw materials they use and also it is a senseless policy which puts a premium on the rapid exhaustion of our natural resources. While there are many other things beside the tariff which are responsible for good or bad times, yet the tariff has its effect, and it will tell for prosperity to put our tariff system on a business-like basis and to make such changes in the law as will make the burden of taxation no higher than is needful for carrying out a fair and honest protective policy. WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE DINGLEY TARIFF REQUIRE REVISION BY ALBERT CLARKE, Secretary of the Home Market Club and former Chairman of the United States Industrial Commission. For three years there has been a growing demand for a revision of the tariff, and now that the occasion is riper than it was, revision has been agreed upon and the preliminary work begun. I have been trying all the while to have some immediate revisionist file a bill of particulars, but without success, except that a few have said the iron and steel duties are too high, wool and woolens require overhauling, the lumber, pulp and paper duties should be repealed or reduced, all important raw materials should be put in the free list and reciprocity should be promoted. Most of these suggestions have been made in general terms and by men not engaged in the industries proposed to be affected. The time is now at hand when suggestions must become definite to be of any value. The Republicans having resolved to maintain the policy of protection, and the Senate being assuredly Republican for four years, it is easy to prognosticate that whatever the Democratic policy may be (this article is written prior to the Denver convention), the revision that will take place will seek to readjust duties and regulations, bringing them up to date, rather than to enter upon any change of policy. All the free traders and many protectionists, however, think there should be a general reduction. and few or no increases. Investigation has convinced me that they will have to be disappointed if Congress carries out the Republican promise, and this because of facts which I will proceed to state. The present tariff was enacted in 1897. Except in one or two cases of the accumulation of several years' supply of imported products under its predecessor, it was in normal operation by 1900. The test of a tariff as to whether or not it is too high, or not sufficiently protective, is seen in the imports of a series of years. |