THE TARIFF: Impelled to Passage

Under the iron hand of the Republican majority, the Tariff Bill was rounded into shape for final passage by the House last week. It was not a pretty sight for soft-hearted political theorists. But that large sector of U. S. citizens which exalts the House over the Senate, which praises its “businesslike” method of legislative procedure, glowed with fresh admiration as it observed a tight little political autocracy make the fewest necessary concessions to muster a party majority behind its economic will and then, under a special rule, impel the measure through to passage.

Shut & Locked. Republican members of the Ways & Means Committee had silenced the noisy uprising of farm state Congressmen by drafting a few changes in the agricultural schedules of the Tariff Bill. Then last week into the House Chamber were herded some 200 Republicans by their leaders, to ratify these changes. The doors were shut and locked after the manner of the Senate in executive session. There, out of the public eye, the party fought out its differences, the Democrats on the outside listening anxiously to the triumphant cheers from within.

Point by point the opposition was beaten down. By a vote of 206 to 24, the G. O. P. House members agreed to the will of their leaders. The Tariff Bill was as good as written and passed through the House at that point.

Bargains Won. Concessions which brought agreement were made on the basis of increasing duties on certain farm products above those reported in the original bill, in return for farm support on the remainder of the measure. Farm state Congressmen won and lost in this process of appeasement. They won on:

Potatoes, the duty on which was increased from 50¢ to 75¢ per 100 lb. The Maine Republican delegation had vowed it would not support the Tariff Bill without this provision.

Hides, which were removed from the free list and made dutiable at 10% ad valorem to satisfy U. S. cattle-raisers, despite the fact that nine in ten of them sell their hides on the hoof and can profit by this increase only in the form of higher live cattle prices.

Butter, the duty on which was moved up from 12¢ to 14¢ per lb. to keep in line G. O. P. dairymen, especially in Minnesota.

Live Cattle (see hides), on which the graduated tariff was increased ½¢ per Ib. and the weight of stock for the bottom rates reduced 250 lb.

Figs, on which the duty was raised from 2¢ to 4¢ to appease California Republicans.

Canned tomatoes, on which the duty was increased from 25% to 40% ad valorem to satisfy Eastern vegetable growers.

Onions, on which the tariff was raised from 1¾¢ to 2¢ per lb.

Bargains Lost. In return for these advantages Republican farm state Congressmen surrendered on:

Cement, brick, building materials, shingles, hardwood, on which the new high tariff was retained, thus keeping in line Western lumbermen, Eastern brick and cement producers.

Sugar, on which the 3¢ world rate (2.4¢ Cuban rate) was left unchanged, thus giving the Midwestern beet-sugar growers, the Louisiana cane-sugar growers, what they wanted.

Flaxseed, on which the proposed rate of 56¢ per bushel was not raised to the farm demand level of 80¢ per bushel.

Casein, on which the farmers’ cry for an 8¢ rate brought sufficiently loud objections from the coated paper and glue manufacturers to hold the proposed duty down to 2½¢.

Blackstrap, on which farmers had sought an 8¢ per gal. duty in hopes of diverting makers of industrial alcohol from this molasses by-product to domestic corn. The Tariff Bill first allowed them a 2 1/6¢ per gal. duty. Paint makers, medicine makers, automobile makers protested effectively, warned of higher prices. The G. O. P. conference agreed to reduce the blackstrap rate back to 1/6¢ per gal.

Boots & Shoes, which were removed from the free list and made dutiable at 20% ad valorem, as a “compensation” for the new tariff on hides.

Leather, on which was imposed a “compensatory” 15% ad valorem duty, with the prospect that the farmers may find themselves paying increased prices for harness and saddles.

Oratory. The House debate on the Tariff Bill was unimportant except for one speech by Representative James Montgomery Beck of Pennsylvania, onetime (1921-25) U. S. Solicitor General. Mr. Beck had fared badly when he first came to the House in 1927. His right to a seat had been challenged on the ground that his residence in Philadelphia was not bona fide, that he was not an inhabitant of Pennsylvania and did not meet the constitutional requirements for membership in the House. For months he remained in the legislative shadows, a mortified little man taking little or no part in House affairs. Last session the House cleared his title to a seat. Last week he took the House floor as a full-fledged legislator and on a topic that in other hands would have been stupid, brought the House membership to its feet cheering for him. Such demonstrations in a tariff debate are rare.

“I am a Republican and a protectionist,” said Mr. Beck, flaying the proposed change in tariff flexibility, “but I am an old-fashioned constitutionalist.” Congressman Beck’s complaint was that the present tariff law allows the President to change duties up or down by 50% on the basis of inequalities in production costs here and abroad. The new bill would allow the same 50% revision, but on the basis of inequalities of conditions of competition. The first, Mr. Beck called an ascertainable fact; the second, an economic theory. He deplored the transfer of such “an almost absolute power of taxation” to the U. S. President, begged Congress not to destroy itself by giving up such a fundamental prerogative. He blamed the proposal upon “one of these theoretical economists [who] are as full of ideas as a dog is of fleas.”

This “vicious circle” he traced to the House: “One individual in an executive bureau conceives an idea that greater powers ought to be given to the Executive, and then the appropriate department approves it, and then your committees approve it because the department did, and then the Congress enacts it because the committee approves it and then the judiciary adds its final sanction out of respect for the legislative will.”

And at the U. S. Supreme Court he made the House laugh by saying: “The Supreme Court is very much like Hamlet following the ghost of his father. The court follows that ghostly thing we call the will of Congress. It follows it as did the Prince of Denmark follow the ghost, with timidity and trembling, because it never knows how far the Congress is going or into what abyss of unconstitutionalism the ghost may lead it. But finally there comes a time when the court sees it is approaching some perilous cliff, and it says, ‘Whither wilt thou lead me? Speak! I will gono further’.”

Formality. The final proceedings on the Tariff Bill were hardly more than parliamentary formalities. The House adopted its rule 234 to 138. Sugar brought five Louisiana Democrats to the Republican side. The Democratic minority, thus shut out of testing House sentiment by offering amendments to the measure, loudly complained that they were “hog-tied.” Thereafter the measure sped rapidly along toward final House action.