INTRODUCTION The Tariff Act of 1922, effective September 22, sets forth certain principles and provides for certain practices that seem definitely to constitute a new commercial policy for the United States. This does not mean that the new act undertakes any sudden departure from tradition or that it points to a development that is not reasonably and naturally the result of the new environment in which old principles and old practices now find themselves. It does mean, however, that the existence of a new environment is definitely recognized and that the United States has entered upon the task of adapting the national policy to a consistent following out of old ideals through new instruments. Without a new engine the old train of development could not proceed farther. The American political motto "Equal rights for all and special privileges for none expresses the general policy that the United States has pursued toward international commerce. This country has generally accorded equal tariff treatment to the products of other nations and has usually sought no more and no less than a substantial equality for its products in all the markets of the world. Present-day opinion appears to proceed straightforward from the foundation of the past. In the course of an extended address to the Senate soon after the opening of the four months' debate on the Fordney tariff bill, Mr. Reed Smoot, of Utah, said: In short, Senators, we would base the commercial policy of the United States upon the twin ideas of granting equal treat227] 17 ment to all nations in the market of the United States, and of exacting equal treatment for the commerce of the United States in foreign markets. We do not believe that the United States should pursue a general policy of special bargains and special reciprocity treaties. .. We stand for a simple, straightforward, friendly policy of equal treatment for all, with no discriminations against any country except as that country has first discriminated against us.1 These statements had special reference to what has become Section 317 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the purpose of which is to empower the President to defend the American exporter' against discriminations in the markets of other countries. The means to be employed is the levy of what may most appropriately be called defensive duties, authorized by Presidential proclamation, upon products from countries that discriminate against this country's products. Such duties would be additional to the duties normally paid upon the commodities affected and would constitute a resort to the offensive as the most practicable means of defending the national position. Obviously the most ordinary sense of consistency would require that a very strict observance of the rule against favoritism must guide the United States in its laws affecting the rights of other countries to enter the American market. The United States cannot present perfectly clean hands in this respect either historically or with regard to current practice. The record shows that there exist in the aggregate numerous instances of discriminations both in tariff laws and in the interpretation of treaties and that at times definite 'Congressional Record, vol. 62, pt. vi, 67th Congress, 2d Session, p. 5881, April 24, 1922. 'The American importer may be defended against foreign discriminatory export duties; but this may be regarded as a secondary purpose. policies, looking to the adoption of systems of treaties based upon reciprocal favors or concessions that discriminated against third countries, have guided American commercial policy. The acid test of the new policy, in respect both to its novelty and to its genuineness, will be found in the attitude of the country toward dispensing with every relic of special privilege or concession in international commerce, even though the particular instance is, in itself, advantageous to the commerce of the United States. Section 317 of the Tariff Act of 1922 at least lays the foundation for a policy of equality, of a more perfect and more unadulterated and hence a new equality, as compared with the practice of the past. But unless the building proceeds according to a plumb-line held true by a national sense of consistency and a national willingness to sacrifice lesser for greater advantages, even when cutting off the lesser ones hurts, the finished edifice will be lacking in real distinction. |